Part 10 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Yes...no doubt about it...you can't comprehend what you read...lol

You remind me of dairyair...are you folks related?...lol He also has a hard time comprehending what he reads...lol

 

He did and has ignored my questions, several times relating to this.

snip...

Exactly the point. We all have beliefs based on what we learn and experience.
Religious folks get trapped, IMO, in one way and one way only and can't change their perspective based on new evidence.
They have to contort new evidence to fit what they have already concluded and have locked in. IMO.

 

Others facts to look at regarding the world wide flood being a myth. The amount of rain to fall in 40 days and 40 nights would have so much pressure it would kill off every living thing on this planet. Many aquatic life can only live in fresh or salt water. Certain animal species need specific foods and tempral zones to survive. Even with today's technology we could not collect 2 of every spieces in 40 years let alone the time Noah did it. Most plant life would die off being submerged under water for so long. No plant life - no Oxygen. So many more facts why the flood story is a myth.

 

Oh man.....are you kidding me? Do I actually have to spell it out for you as I had hoped the several things I had mentioned would be more than PROOF ENOUGH for anyone.

Here is a list of PROOFS....and I am defining a PROOF as a reality that unto itself lends 100% Certainty of FACT that the Worldwide Flood and be able to find, capture and place a male and female of each land species existing as well as at least two of any existing Asexually reproducing or any Mitosis reproducing Life Forms upon all the continents and Islands of the Earth and get them back in a persons...NOAH'S lifetime to be placed on a boat and cared for so as not to die and be fed and then ride out a worldwide flood......such PROOFS....DISPROVE....100% without even a question of a doubt that this ever happened, could happen or even was possible at even 1% of the number of existing species.

#1....Number of existing Land Based Species.
#2....Distances involved to be traveled all over the Earth to get them.
#3....Time involved in doing #1 or #2 exceeds Noah's Lifetime.
#4....Time involved in doing #1 or #2 is irrelevant as Noah did not posses the ability to circumnavigate the Globe.
#5....Even if #4 was possible #2 in conjunction with collecting #1 even if 1 Million people were involved would take more time than the lifetime of many of these species existed on Earth prior to extinction or evolution to different or variant species.
#6....Even if any existing GOD snapped it's fingers and brought all existing life forms to central location....the boat would have to equal in size 100 miles long 50 miles wide just to house Earth's various Plant and Animal and Single Celled Organism Species never mind the food and fresh water and other species specific material and environments necessary for their survival.
#7....Not enough water on Earth even if all polar ice melted to be able to cover all land masses....in fact not even CLOSE.
#8....The ONUS is upon the STORY TELLER to prove the story NOT ON THOSE WHO CHALLENGE THE STORY!!

AboveAlpha

 

You obviously either did not read my last post, or you are not in touch with the reality of what I stated in my last post.

Look at your last two enumerated lines.
line numbered 7 you tell your version of the story where you indicate 'not enough water'.
line numbered 8 you tell about the ONUS being on the STORY TELLER. Well, your version of the story (your explanation) makes you the story teller of that version. So, abide by your final dictate.... the ONUS is upon you.

 

Even though the onus is on you....I will simply state facts....the mean average elevation of all the Earth's land masses is 686 meters (2250 feet) in altitude from sea level.

5,773,000 cubic miles of solid ice exist frozen on Earth mostly at the poles....and this amount of water is equal to only 1.7% of all water on Earth.

If ALL the ice melted on Earth we would see a rise of 216 feet in sea level.

This National Geographic site will show you pictures of what the land masses would look like....

LINK....http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

Case CLOSED.

It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FLOOD THE ENTIRE EARTH.

AboveAlpha

 

And still not sufficient to compel my mind to accept what you say as 'true"

 

That is because your mind is clouded by your ideology instead of embracing the facts.

AboveAlpha

 

Which explains why so many either dismiss your posts as silly...or place you on ignore.

 

And that comment of yours is so obviously an opinion that is clouded by personal bias and has absolutely nothing to do with embracing any kind of fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Then there are those like you.

 

amazing.

 

Of course. Cultists such as yourself are intransigent in their faith.

The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Protestants ALL of their religious scholars consider the myths of the old testament to be apocraphyl and do not take them literally. they even accept evolution and not the creation myth.

Of course there are those that need to believe in such supernatural nonsense, because without believing in the outlandish "miracles" of the bible, why believe in anything in the bible? Apparently the metaphors, symbolism and campfire stories of "awe" that envelopes the wisdom found therein need to be true for literalists to reserve their place in some other dimensional location we call heaven/nirvana/paradise/et.al.

 

Well thank you for recognizing that intransigent state of mind that I possess. Though your labeling of "cultist" is dubious.

You do realize that the term "ALL" leaves nothing (or in this case no-one) to be excluded. I would be willing to bet that you cannot support that claim with any data which shows that ALL of those scholars have been interviewed and tested to determine their position with regard to your claim.

That seems to be more of an opinion than a question. Are you asking a question or are you making a statement that is uncertain in your mind?

The meanings of the term "apparent" go from one extreme to another. From "knowing" all the way to "seeming" or supposing. "ap·par·ent (-prnt, -pâr-)
adj.
1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage."
So again, there is that ambiguity in what you are attempting to stress. But the underlying message you have imparted shows an uncertainty.

 

non-mainstream literalist belief.

Talking about church DOCTRINE. Now you wish to question the dogma of the major christian sects?

rhetorical questions elude you?

Now you wish to play semantics? Rather a clownish deflection of the substance of the point, but I meant definition #2, as anyone with a reasonable command of english would have ascertained.

You do seem extremely facile at bluster and evasion signifying nothing.

Obfuscation, deflection, misinterpretation and word games might satisfy the need to defend the faith, but it is an empty strategy devoid of substance, consideration and mentation.

 

Interesting that facts can't compel you?!?!?

 

Interesting.....atheism or even agnosticism is a "religion"....but theism is scientific fact.


BTW, Mitt, another question....you quote Einstein twice in your signature line. Why do you NOT quote him on this?--

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."----Albert Einstein, letter to Joseph Dispentiere, 1954

 

The throwing of a different label out there to substitute for the first does not change any implied meaning of the original. Therefore, it remains as dubious at best.

You do the same thing don't you? I lost confidence in "church DOCTRINE" a long time ago, when the church decided to go and get married to the STATE through the obligations of 501c3 and Incorporation status.

No! I simply find them a waste of time. Besides there are some non-theists on this forum who object to 'rhetorical questions'.

Then what you are pointing at is something that is subjective. Got it. BTW: anyone with an reasonable command of the English language would have capitalized the word "English".

Well, I suppose that could be considered a compliment... depending on perspective.

Aren't all words empty and devoid of substance? Please show me a word that has 'substance' in and of itself.

 

That is not even a fair assessment. There are a lot of 'facts' that have compelled me. Some people are just presenting sets of 'facts' that don't compel me.
"fact:
2.c. Something believed to be true or real: "

 

He presented a fact on sea levels and melting all the ice....I saw that NatGeo myself.

Thus disputing a theory that "melting all the ice" would have caused Noah's Flood.

Yet...you reject it....as well as not being able to offer any counter-evidence against it.

 

Because it has not been tested and proven. When was the last time you saw a group of scientists go to both the poles of the Earth and begin a process of melting the ice, while another group spaced around the globe were measuring the increase in sea level?

 

There is no such thing as biblical capital crimes...maybe in the minds of lost souls but what do they know?...they are lost, they are unable to understand God's ways. They cry out for vengeance and seek revenge when crime directly effects them but oh no when God carried out His punishments that's a no no to them...such hypocrites!

There were punishments for disobedience of God's laws. God, the Creator has every right to impose His laws unto His creations.

God also had the absolute right to punish evil wicked nations. The Canaanite culture for example, revealed its inherent moral wickedness, they were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm.

Scripture tells us what God commanded the Israelites to do, "You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you. This will prevent the people of the land from teaching you to imitate their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God."---Deu. 20:17-18 NLT

 

Why are you assuming this definition was the one which Gorn Captain was using? Oh, right, dishonesty.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they have to do that? We know approximately how much ice is at the poles, and we know how much water it would result in if it were released.

 

Here is the Christian view of morals.

There can only be objective moral values with God.

When we state that objective moral values exist, what we mean is that there are moral values that govern all humans, regardless of whether or not those humans want those values to govern them, like those values, or accept those values.

If moral values were the result of popular vote, then they would only govern humans because humans had decided to allow them to govern them. Then moral values would not be objective, but rather, subjective.

However, moral values are not subjective in this sense, in the sense that they are the complete invention of the minds of those they govern. If they were subjective in this sense, Hitler's Germany would be no less moral than any other society, and this is not the case.

Thus, moral values are not subjective in this sense. Instead, they are objective in the sense that they govern all humans, at all times, regardless of those individuals' approvals.

If God did not exist, there would not only be no concept of "ought", there would also be no one around to conceptualize it.

Since there is a God, there is a Higher Moral Authority, and therefore there are things we "ought" to do. One of the first and foremost of these things is that we ought to obey our God.

Thus, moral values that govern humans stem from the existence of, and perfect qualities of, our Creator, who is an eternally objective reality. They do not come from the whimsical fancies of a transient consciousness.

So, no, moral values are certainly not subjective.

 

Actually, you have been on ignore for a couple months...I just click "View Post" once in awhile for entertainment.

 

Why not make that assumption. He did not make a declaration to the contrary. Besides, I am the one making my own analysis of what he has presented to the readers (which includes me) as a data.

To meet with that requirement of the scientific method called "testing". That would imply testing the theorem.

You might know of a mathematical calculation which can be contrived to meet any agenda. However, even the mathematical computations have not been PROVEN to be accurate. To prove those numbers accurate, there must be physical testing performed. In this particular case, it would require grandiose testing such as I mentioned in my previous post. "Approximately" is just a matter of 'guess work'... is that what scientists involve themselves in?

- - - Updated - - -

Seeking to stir my emotive state? Fail.