Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 69
Topic's author
#31
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Pedophilia is an act that forever scars children. A crime and an unconscionable act.

Homosexuality between consenting adults is not. 

You do not have a valid point. One is objectively harmful to humans and by extension society one is in your opinion "sinful". 
It still sounds like it is personal to you. 

I take the view that all so called sexual orientations can be compared and contrasted.  I take the view that every sexual orientation outside of marriage as God designed it is sinful.   This includes heterosexuals sex between consenting adults.  For me it is not personal. 

I totally reject pedophilia. And I suggest all people should. Yet I don't call for it be ridiculed.  It ought to be prohibited and those who commit the offence - ought to be subject to the death penalty.  Yet it should not be ridiculed.  

I reject your position that I do not have a valid point.  I said - labelling someone's sexual orientation as sinful is not ridiculing it. I used pedophilia as an example - specifically to note  that as detestable and evil as it is - calling it sinful is not meant to ridicule it. I won't ridicule pedophiles - despite the fact that I reject absolutely everything about them .  And if this is the case with one of the things I most despise - then other things I call sinful clearly are not meant to ridicule them. I could have used de-facto couples - of consenting adults who are not married - to make my point about ridicule. But it would not have made the same point because most people don't see people "living in sin" as sinful.  

The point stands.  Calling a sexual orientation sinful is not subjecting it to ridicule.  
#32
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't care what you think is sinful. I'm discussing morality and homosexuality is not noticeably more harmful than heterosexuality. Pedophilia is harmful. That is the difference.
Topic's author
#33
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't care what you think is sinful. I'm discussing morality and homosexuality is not noticeably more harmful than heterosexuality. Pedophilia is harmful. That is the difference.
Well now you say you don't care. Five minutes ago you were attempting to ridicule me for what you say you don't care about. LOL@ inconsistency. 

We were actually discussing the distinction between someone's belief and their person. You said if you attacked their belief - it was not attacking their person. I did not disagree with you but noted that the world had changed so much so that people cannot distinguish the two. You perfectly modelled that for us. Thanks. 

I never said homosexuality was more noticeably harmful that heterosexuality. In fact I don't even think that is something I would consider to be true. I do take the view that it would be preferable for children to have both a mother and a father. I do take the view that one of the major causes of poverty in the world is a lack of a balanced gender environment in the home. And I think the studies bear that out. Nevertheless, by itself - I don't think one orientation is better or worse than the other. I see a lot of non-gay relationships which cause significant harm in the house. 

But your difference does not change my point. In fact mostly you have confirmed it. 


Topic's author
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
Just saying it - does not make it so.  If we applied that test to the big bang fairy tale I suggest it would also fall fatally to logic.  It after all is not subject to testability, It is not repeatable - it is unable to be put under a microscope. We are told it is true - and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the people in the world would be unable to explain it satisfactorily - such that simple logic would call it into question.

Um . . . it depends on what you are calling the "Big Bang".   There was no "bang" if you mean sound, since sound is a vibration propagated through air  -- and needs a receiver (an ear) to hear it.  There was no bang because there was no air yet and certainly no ear. 

But if you mean the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) which is the "relic" radiation left behind from the "sudden" appearance of energy that spans every corner of the universe  ----   then YES IT CAN AND HAS BEEN "EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY" as well as scientifically.  We have detected (and functionally utilized) microwaves FROM the "big bang's" CMB for years.  It is not a story.  It is a factual reality.

The Big Bang is a bad example if you are comparing it to Noah's Ark, which is merely a story and may or may not be true.  What cannot be proven about the Big Bang, however, is how or why it happened in the first place.   But the fact that it happened is not in dispute, even if it is not perfectly named.
Interesting stuff. I will have to think about this some more before I respond. You seem to make some pertinent points. Thanks. 
#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Well now you say you don't care. Five minutes ago you were attempting to ridicule me for what you say you don't care about. LOL@ inconsistency. 
Please stop conflating criticism of your argument with criticism of you. 
We were actually discussing the distinction between someone's belief and their person. 
A person's sexual orientation is not a belief or a choice it is part of who they are as a person and provided they are not causing harm that is sufficient to justify obstructing th wer ir liberties thror liberties should not be impinged. Comparing pedophilia with consenting sex between adults is muddying the waters at best and ad hominem attack at worst. You are confirming the consequence.
Topic's author
#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Well now you say you don't care. Five minutes ago you were attempting to ridicule me for what you say you don't care about. LOL@ inconsistency. 
Please stop conflating criticism of your argument with criticism of you.
Are you denying you were attempting to ridicule me as opposed to my argument? When you asked the question "are you seriously ...?" It certainly seems personal. 
But I am prepared to accept the benefit of the doubt in this instance. 



We were actually discussing the distinction between someone's belief and their person. 
A person's sexual orientation is not a belief or a choice it is part of who they are as a person and provided they are not causing harm that is sufficient to justify obstructing th wer ir liberties thror liberties should not be impinged. Comparing pedophilia with consenting sex between adults is muddying the waters at best and ad hominem attack at worst. You are confirming the consequence.
Yes, so you say. Of course there is NO scientific evidence to support that position. And this is part of the issue isn't?  And it forms part and parcel of the change in thinking in our culture.  People want to identify in a particular way because they feel they are that way. Interestingly, there is probably religious evidence to support so called sexual orientation.  But as far as scientific evidence goes - there is none. Well none that have demonstrated a biological cause.  Of course I am happy for you to produce studies that show otherwise.  So far they have not found a GAY gene.   There was a study a few years ago which tried to suggest there was - but this was dismissed pretty quickly when they discovered the test subjects had all died from AIDS - and it was AIDS itself which had caused the change in biological makeup. 

Reputable Studies which are peer reviewed and accepted within the particular community.  

Most of the information we obtain is anecdotal - mostly we are told just to believe it is true.  

I have already explained my position in relation to pedophilia. I did not muddy the waters. You just saw it as a personal attack - proving my case that you are unable to distinguish between the argument and the person. 
#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?


No. <<<There, OP question addressed.   But why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention when caught on the back-foot and cornered by your own  BS and word salad? 



The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated.

"God agreed"?  With whom? 



 Hence he decided to demonstrate grace towards Noah, his family and either two or seven of every kind of creature, depending upon whether they were clean or unclean and in order for humanity to have a second chance. God knew that humanity did not deserve it. Yet, out of his kindness and mercy, he commanded Noah to build an Ark in which his family and all animals - could enter and be safe.

This included all the fresh water and all the different kinds of foods these different animals ate for the five months floating about on the sea.   Such as Eucalyptus for the Australian Koala. Bamboo for the Chinese Panda. Leaves of the toxic milkweed plant for the Monarch Butterfly.  Prairie dogs for the Black-footed Ferret. Natural fermented nectar of the Bertram Palm for Pen-tailed Treeshrew.  And  one has to ask how did Noah round up the Echidna and Aardvarks and Wallabies and Kangaroos or the 21 species of animals and birds native only to New Zealand. Then there are those only native to Madagascar such as the  Lemurs ,Pochards, Giraffe Weevil, Panther Chameleon and the Tomato Frog? 

I suppose we have to expect yet  another load of word salad explaining what the bible also doesn't say.


And one would have thought that a SERPENT!  would have been the last thing Noah wanted on his boat considering it was  a SERPENT!that corrupted ALL mankind in the first place and caused god to destroy every living thing on it bar a chosen few couples.  Do you not see how ridiculous this all sounds. 

I addressed your OP just in case you missed it here it is again.

Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?
No.  But why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention when caught on the back-foot and cornered by your own  BS and word salad? 


Topic's author
#38
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,

I am addressing questions which some believe need to be answered. 

I am not of the view that I have been caught on the back-foot. But thanks for answering the question. 

And for answering it so succinctly. 


#39
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I am addressing questions which some believe need to be answered. 

 
Then try addressing these questions I asked above, that I believe you should answer: 


The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated.

"God agreed"  With whom? 


And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  


#40
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  

Two GREAT questions, well done. 
#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you denying you were attempting to ridicule me as opposed to my argument? When you asked the question "are you seriously ...?" It certainly seems personal. 
But I am prepared to accept the benefit of the doubt in this instance. 
Take it however you like. If you were equating consensual sex between adults with molestation of children any argument to that effect deserves to be ridiculed and if you honestly believe that they are equally abominable behaviors I don't really care if I offended you pointing it out. Furthermore I am not prepared to continue this discussion until we have resolved the difference between the two and exactly why that is an unacceptable attitude. 
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It is the immediate ridicule and scorn of persons attempting to destroy other person's beliefs without actually considering the impact that this will have on them.  

This is simply playing victim when stuck for answers.  [A] I don't care that you have a  belief and I don't care that you have faith.  It is what you have a belief and faith in that concerns me. 

I have said on many, many occasions on this forum that I have no intention of even attempting to change yours or anyone's beliefs or attempt to turn you from what you have faith in. So just stop playing victim and take up the challenges inspired by your own thread.



 Also just to be clear ridiculing a person's beliefs is not analogous to ridiculing them.
When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person. 

You really wish that was true don't you. You could then play victim at every turn when stuck for a plausible answer supported by facts then, couldn't you?

Of late you have been caught out making things up about the bible and have failed to answer the simplest of obvious questions that  all Christians should be asking themselves  and have probably felt deflated if not embarrassed when unable to do so . Now you are claiming victim-hood and using this as an excuse not to engage in questions that your own thread has provoked.  You have  even attempted to limit this thread - your thread - to one simple yes or no answer. I gave you what you wanted yet you have failed  on a number of occasions to afford me the same courtesy such as here when I asked you : 

  - is Jesus also the god Yahweh /Jehovah, yes or no?  Is all you did was skirt the question with answers such as , "Jesus is god"  when I specifically asked you ; is Jesus also the god Yahweh /Jehovah, yes or no?



When their beliefs are being attacked and ridiculed, are unable to separate themselves from the argument and their identity.

Being unable to distinguish between the two  is their/your problem. I have made myself extremely clear at  [A] above and not for the first time on this forum.
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  

Two GREAT questions, well done. 

And I don't expect a single answer to either ludo.

#44
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode



.
RoderickSpode,

YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU MISSED THE POINT: "So under this premise, which would be more likely? Infant or adult animals?"

What part of this statement of mine didn't you understand?:  "SIMPLY PUT, AND WHERE WE PROMISE NOT TO LAUGH FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, LET US USE "DINOSAUR INFANTS" INSTEAD OF "ADULT DINOSAURS,"  and leave the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other “kinds” of breathing life that had to be upon the crowding available space on the Ark for later, okay?"

For the sake of a discussion, I am just going with the proposition of "infant kinds of breathing life" (Genesis 7:14-15) upon the Ark because this is the main premise of the thread. Whereas, a pseudo-christian can NEVER say that ONLY animals were placed upon Noah's ark like one embarrassingly did in the past, where this showed the complete Bible ineptness this Christian had! LOL!

Both pro and con propositions are troubling, where if a pseudo-christian can actually say there had to be baby animals, fledgling birds, fish frys, insect larvae, and dinosaur hatchlings upon Noah's ark, then how did they "enter" onto the Ark like it is stated in Genesis 7:9 as infants?   Whereas, this is just the beginning of trampling upon biblical axioms relating to Noah's ark when "infant breathing life" of all "kinds" are mentioned, understood?  

Most importantly, how did all of these "infant kinds of breathing life" (Genesis 7:14-15) survive in the Arks environment without the ADULT MOTHERS AND FATHERS providing for them as they would have done in their natural environments?   Let alone, and in only "one kind" of thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of "kinds," how did Noah feed 8 pairs of "infant sharks" that had to be in a separate saline water tank to prevent them from eating the "other 'kinds' of fish" upon the waters for 371 days?!  A truly Bible inept pseudo-christian mentioned there had to be water tanks on  Noah's ark for every "kind" of fish, therefore if he thought this to be true, then so should we! 


Now, there is no further need to dodge my questions to you in post #4, AND in addressing EVERY proposition within this post as well, is there? Good.


++++++++++++++ RoderickSpode, I do have to tell you that it is appreciated that YOU DID NOT RUNAWAY from the obvious complications of the Flood and Noah's ark like a certain Bible inept pseudo-christian did at their total embarrassment within this forum in the past!  Good for you!  ++++++++++++++


.
Topic's author
#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I am addressing questions which some believe need to be answered. 

Then try addressing these questions I asked above, that I believe you should answer: 


The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated.

"God agreed"  With whom? 


And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  

Before I do  answer your questions, which incidentally I intend to do, let me make it quite clear that I started this topic to deal with a specific question. You have answered that and I thank you for doing is so succinctly.  I explained to secular merlin that I have no intention that this topic gets taken down a rabbit hole. It is my view that these questions of yours - though relevant to you, are both of the type to take this down rabbit holes and away from the main task of this topic. 

SO what I propose to do is this: answer them in short here and if you are not satisfied with my answers then start a new topic directly with these questions. 

What I am not going to do is extend it further than that here because as far as I am concerned - you have answered my question succinctly and any further questions by you obviously have a different purpose. 

You ask whom did God agree with?

If you go back to my OP I never said God agreed with a whom. I said God agreed with the position that story of Genesis conveyed in respect of humanity, that they had become so evil they did not deserve to live. And my point was not that God and the story of Genesis sat down and had a talk and agreed.  It is similar to me saying I agree with the fact that pedophiles are evil and should be castrated. It is different from me by the fact that I don't have the power or authority or the jurisdiction to carry out such a view. 

 And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Firstly, this is not true. I often discuss what the scriptures do say. And there are many such responses by me on this forum. This is a topic in relation to a question posed to me and so I posed it back and then answered it. 


Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  
I do not think that it is a preference of mine at all.  I prefer to discuss the bible and to read it in its context. There are times of course when some people ask questions that require a discussion about things other than in the direct passages. Are you suggesting that others can discuss these things and I should be be censored? 

Topic's author
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you denying you were attempting to ridicule me as opposed to my argument? When you asked the question "are you seriously ...?" It certainly seems personal. 
But I am prepared to accept the benefit of the doubt in this instance. 
Take it however you like. If you were equating consensual sex between adults with molestation of children any argument to that effect deserves to be ridiculed and if you honestly believe that they are equally abominable behaviors I don't really care if I offended you pointing it out. Furthermore I am not prepared to continue this discussion until we have resolved the difference between the two and exactly why that is an unacceptable attitude. 

You may think you are not taking this personally but your words sure say otherwise. 

For the record and I thought I had made it clear - I do see a difference between what adults do consensually and what is seen to be molestation of children. So stop getting yuor knickers in a knot about that.  Try and be objective - rational. 

You suggested homosexuality is simply one's sexual orientation. 

Pedophilia is also considered  a sexual orientation.  As too is heterosexuality's. And some might even suggest that bestiality is as well.  

Objectively, each sexual orientation ought to be compared and contrasted.  Why would you rationally think that they should not compared and contrasted? 

This is why I think it is personal for you. An objective person would be able to divorce their emotions from this contrast. 

Oh and yes just to make it clear for the record I am not saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are two equal abominations. 

As far as I can see the only unacceptable reason for not objectively contrasting and comparing ALL sexual orientations is emotion and personal reasons. And yeah I suppose - politics. Never forget politics. As I said above - the world has changed. Once upon a time we could discuss these things rationally. Now it has changed. 


#47
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As a "true Christian", I think you can appreciate similar dilemas we might share with atheists.

Like the atheist and the extremely unlikely independent development of life, we don't know details as to how certain things came about. What we collectively (Christians and atheists) do know is that "we are here". So we all have to work it from that standpoint.

For us Christians, if we take the biblical flood as a real historical event, we have to add up the "biblical" fact that there was a massive flood that would have prevented our existence today. We wouldn't be having this discussion. But, we're here with an over abundance of animal life to fill our cable networks with multiple animal related channels.

This is of course assuming you take the event of Noah's Ark as fact.

In similar fashion to the problem of our unlikely existence for the atheist, let's try turning the tables around.


We get a news report that Noah's Ark was found on Mt. Ararat, with sufficient evidence found inside the ship that Noah's family were the pilots.

Now it's no longer a question of did it happen, but how did it happen (with the understanding that it was a real event)?




#48
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
If you go back to my OP I never said God agreed with a whom.

I know what you wrote, that is why I have questioned it.  

This is what you wrote and in context: #1


The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated. 


I said God agreed with the position that story of Genesis conveyed in respect of humanity,

But Genesis, although it  is said to be  is "god inspired"  wasn't written before the flood, was it?    





 And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Firstly, this is not true.

This thread - your thread - proves different doesn't it.  You want to discuss things that the scriptures don't even mention. its in the title- your title: 

Author:Tradesecret,2 days ago. Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?
So you accept that neither the scriptures nor god does not mention "ONLY adult animals" but you want to discuss something not mentioned.


I often discuss what the scriptures do say.

So you have grasped the only  reason that this religion forum exists.


Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  
I do not think that it is a preference of mine at all. 

 Not true.

I prefer to discuss the bible and to read it in its context.

Well this thread alone shows that to be false doesn't it.  Where does it clearly state that god commanded that ONLY INFANT animals enter into the ark? It doesn't does it? But here you are, attempting to make a point and  build an argument around something  the scriptures do not even state. 

Is asking question about what isn't even written in scripture or words not spoken said by Jesus , his disciples or written by the biblical authors, discussing the bible "in context"? 

#49
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
If you agree that pedophilia is abominable and unconnected with homosexuality in any rational way it does make me wonder why you brought it up since it is not otherwise impactful to our discussion. I am not emotional by the way and this isn't a personal topic for me per se I am just not going to let you get away with pretending that allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they choose and allowing pedophiles to harm children are in any way related subjects. If you think homosexuality is in some way immoral you will have to support your claim without reference to pedophilia. 

#50
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode



.

Roderick Spode,

Hmmm, I read your post #47 in response to my posts #4 and 44 within this thread in regarding that I have given extensive biblical axioms and other facts of why infants could not have replaced adult animals upon Noah's ark, like a certain zoology and Bible ignorant pseudo-christian fool portends within this thread!  Guess what? You did not address the content my said posts directed to you!  Why?  WWJD?

Now, if you are going to RUN AWAY from biblical axioms relative to the topic of infants being placed upon the ark instead of adult animals, and the ramifications thereof, then you are acting in the same manner as the aforementioned zoology and Bible ignorant pseudo-christian fool that is in this thread!  Is discussing this topic in detail over your pay grade like it obviously is for the aforementioned zoology and Bible ignorant fool? 


Here, for the sake of your time, let me bring the 2 posts in question that you are running away from to the forefront so you can address them in their entire content, as listed below: 




RoderickSpode, you as an alleged Christian, the last thing that you want to be known for within this forum is to be a RUN AWAY from any topic here at DEBATEART religion forum when it is presented to you. Remember what it did to a certain pseudo-christian that was blatantly guilty of this RUN AWAY MO, where this individual will pay for this cowardly act as long as they are on this forum!  LOL


.
Topic's author
#51
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
If you go back to my OP I never said God agreed with a whom.

I know what you wrote, that is why I have questioned it.  

This is what you wrote and in context: #1


The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated. 


I said God agreed with the position that story of Genesis conveyed in respect of humanity,

But Genesis, although it  is said to be  is "god inspired"  wasn't written before the flood, was it?    





 And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

Firstly, this is not true.

This thread - your thread - proves different doesn't it.  You want to discuss things that the scriptures don't even mention. its in the title- your title: 

Author:Tradesecret,2 days ago. Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?
So you accept that neither the scriptures nor god does not mention "ONLY adult animals" but you want to discuss something not mentioned.


I often discuss what the scriptures do say.

So you have grasped the only  reason that this religion forum exists.


Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  
I do not think that it is a preference of mine at all. 

 Not true.

I prefer to discuss the bible and to read it in its context.

Well this thread alone shows that to be false doesn't it.  Where does it clearly state that god commanded that ONLY INFANT animals enter into the ark? It doesn't does it? But here you are, attempting to make a point and  build an argument around something  the scriptures do not even state. 

Is asking question about what isn't even written in scripture or words not spoken said by Jesus , his disciples or written by the biblical authors, discussing the bible "in context"? 

Given that your responses are obviously all tongue in cheek, i don't see what needs to be replied to. 


#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret



Given that your responses are obviously all tongue in cheek, i don't see what needs to be replied to.
What an absolute cowardly response. 


The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated.
Considering that Genesis - indeed the bible - wasn't even thought about at the time of the flood then  tell me, "God agreed"?  With whom? 


Hence he decided to demonstrate grace towards Noah, his family and either two or seven of every kind of creature, depending upon whether they were clean or unclean and in order for humanity to have a s chance. God knew that humanity did not deserve it. Yet, out of his kindness and mercy, he commanded Noah to build an Ark in which his family and all animals - could enter and be safe.

And did this include all the fresh drinking water and all the different kinds of foods these different animals ate for the five months floating about on the sea.   Such as Eucalyptus for the Australian Koala. Bamboo for the Chinese Panda. Leaves of the toxic milkweed plant for the Monarch Butterfly.  Prairie dogs for the Black-footed Ferret. Natural fermented nectar of the Bertram Palm for Pen-tailed Treeshrew.  And  one has to ask how did Noah round up the Echidna and Aardvarks and Wallabies and Kangaroos or the 21 species of animals and birds native only to New Zealand. Then there are those only native to Madagascar such as the  Lemurs ,Pochards, Giraffe Weevil, Panther Chameleon and the Tomato Frog?




Topic's author
#53
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So let's see. Which part of "I am not going to explore rabbit holes don't you understand"?


I asked a question. You answered it. Let's move onto other discussions on other topics. 

And please stop calling me a coward.  It is not true - and it hardly is likely to persuade me to answer. 


#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Let's move onto other discussions on other topics. 

 I am . I asked you  two questions above. Did you miss them? Or was they simply too difficult for you to concoct a logical excuse around. 

You could always go to this thread and try out the questions you have totally ignored#37



#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I think that all of the above just goes to prove that the Ark story is probably something of an exaggerated myth.

As I suggested elsewhere, it was perhaps derived from hand me down tales, whereby some guy probably rescued a few goats from a flooded pasture in a small boat.
Topic's author
#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi and thanks for your comments. 

I will take it under consideration. 


Topic's author
#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Let's move onto other discussions on other topics. 

 I am . I asked you  two questions above. Did you miss them? Or was they simply too difficult for you to concoct a logical excuse around. 

You could always go to this thread and try out the questions you have totally ignored#37
Why is it that you have to taint everything you direct at me with "ridicule"? 

I am happy to answer those questions.  Start a new topic and I will do so in due course. 
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it that you have to taint everything you direct at me with "ridicule"? 

Your victim- hood is not working. ......  least not on me .

Topic's author
#59
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If you agree that pedophilia is abominable and unconnected with homosexuality in any rational way it does make me wonder why you brought it up since it is not otherwise impactful to our discussion. I am not emotional by the way and this isn't a personal topic for me per se I am just not going to let you get away with pretending that allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they choose and allowing pedophiles to harm children are in any way related subjects. If you think homosexuality is in some way immoral you will have to support your claim without reference to pedophilia. 
Don't try and make me say something I did not say. 

I think pedophilia is abominable.  I am not the one who says it is connected with homosexuality. You can read that in the leading sexual orientation reports - such as the Kinsey Report. 

I explained why I raised it.  It is a perfect example of how people let their emotions into the topic and are unable to separate it objectively.  I don't know why you try and keep suggesting that I am conflating the two. My point is - sexual orientations if they exist ought to be analyzed objectively. I also further suggested that de-facto relationships come into play here.  For the record, I don't have an issue of comparing ordinary heterosexuals married couple with pedophilia. It in no way suggests there is a link between the two. But that is because I am being objective and rational. 

I think any sex outside of God ordained and ordered marriage is sinful.  This includes pornography and masturbation. And therefore wrong. 

I don't happen to think that just because two adults are consenting that this makes it ok. I don't agree with drugs either. So if two consenting adults consumed drugs behind closed doors - it would still be illegal even if no one else ever gets hurt.  Or if two adults had a séance, I would state that it is wrong as well. But does this mean I think it should be illegal or that they are bad people? No that would be a dumb conclusion to draw, methinks.  Similarly, despite my objection to homosexuality, I would not be one to advocate that it ought to be criminalized again. That too would be dumb. 

But this is a rabbit hole - and one I did not want to go down.  
Topic's author
#60
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
ROFL!