NationStates

Neanderthaland wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I don't see how this intereferes with my beliefs. As said earlier, I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. If I don't believe in a literal interpration of something, then what's the point in arguing about its details

I'm speaking generally. You have time and time again brought up something you thought was a good argument for Christian theism, or at the very least a nice "gotcha" for atheists, but every time it gets effortlessly smacked down.

I guess I'm just wondering how someone who can be so consistently wrong, can be so convinced that they're ultimately right?

Seconded. Even The Archregimancy was aghast at it:

The Archregimancy wrote:what an embarrassingly poor job Australian rePublic is doing of defending Christianity. The thread's devolved into atheists making mincemeat of one of the worst Christian apologists (using the latter word in the traditional sense) in the history of NSG. Really, it's cringe-inducing.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=457461&p=35319330#p35319330

Satuga wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Theologians with a literal PHD on that subject disagree.

Story of Adam and Eve, if this frankly insane story were true, then our entire world would be based upon incest, which if doctors haven't told isn't exactly a good thing for the health of a person.

Story of the Ark, God with his mystic powers made all the animals friends to get on a boat built by some random guy and his family with no building experience whatsoever, and then the earth flooded killing all who didn't make it on the ark, in which the animals would then have to breed with each other and since there are only two of each species, once again we have a story of mass incest. Oh btw the boat design would have never lasted within such harsh conditions, but people usually play it off with "THE POWER OF GOD" excuse.

How come there's so much incest within these books?

Read Genesis again. It isn’t stated that they were literally the only people on Earth. Prior to the actual story of the couple, God (this part is either the persons of the Trinity interacting or God speaking to the angels) says thus:

Genesis 1:26-28 King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The best conclusion that could be drawn here is that Adam and Eve were the first to be created, and perhaps an example of the path of disobedience mankind was going down on. It is never stated that they were the only people around; if so, who is Cain afraid of after killing Abel? Where did he get his wife? Frankly, the notion that they were the only people in existence is little more than an assumption, and it is far, far, far more likely that the occurred in an already populated world. Plus, the flood most probably wasn’t literally global; it is more likely to have occurred in the populated area where the first humans were settled in. Remember that the whole point of the flood was to wipe out the wicked humans, not to destroy literally everything. And again, please remember that paid builders exist, and Noah would have most likely paid people to build the ark, and he already had the instructions.

North German Realm wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Theologians with a literal PHD on that subject disagree.

If those Theologians with literal PHDs believe that the stories of Bible happened, they indeed are believing stories only a child under 5 could believe.

Yep, thinking of people with 160 in the IQ test as stupid and mentally challenged is apparently a trend now.

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Dude, our entire world is based on incest. The best secularist genelogists, mathematicians, and other people who work in related fields all agree that every single person on the planet who has as little as a drop of European blood is decendant from Charlemagne. And the vast, vast majority of people would have at least a tiny bit of European blood in 'em. Considering that the vast majority of us are decendant from a man who lived 1000 years ago, and yet we're far enough apart from eachother for incest to not be a problem, then why would incest be a problem when you multiply the time period by 7? I mean, if a common ancestor dating back 1000 creates enough genetic distinction to avoid incest, then why would a common ansestor from 7000 years be an issue?

And that's if you take the story of Adam and Eve litterarly. Many Christians don't

That is not the incest as implied by the bible if you take adam & eve literally.

Try to find the passage in Genesis where it said that there were only two people on Holy Terra. Oh wait, it doesn’t exist! By the Emperor, so many people have assumed that these two were the only people around and apparently forgot to read Genesis 1:26-28 and the part where Cain is afraid people will kill him. Oh well.

Korhal IVV wrote:

The blAAtschApen wrote:
That is not the incest as implied by the bible if you take adam & eve literally.

Try to find the passage in Genesis where it said that there were only two people on Holy Terra. Oh wait, it doesn’t exist! By the Emperor, so many people have assumed that these two were the only people around and apparently forgot to read Genesis 1:26-28 and the part where Cain is afraid people will kill him. Oh well.

We've since moved on in the discussion

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Try to find the passage in Genesis where it said that there were only two people on Holy Terra. Oh wait, it doesn’t exist! By the Emperor, so many people have assumed that these two were the only people around and apparently forgot to read Genesis 1:26-28 and the part where Cain is afraid people will kill him. Oh well.

We've since moved on in the discussion

Haven’t seen anyone address the inbreeding part tho.

Australian rePublic wrote:

The Grims wrote:
And good from which perspective. Good for the universe may be bad for humanity.

After this time criticising God as evil, you throw a curve ball like this

I don’t get how annihilating humanity will benefit the local white dwarf stars, right.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:After this time criticising God as evil, you throw a curve ball like this

I don’t get how annihilating humanity will benefit the local white dwarf stars, right.

Perhaps the detruction of earth will change their orbit slightly; allowing life to emerge on 30 nearby planets.

Australian rePublic wrote:

The Grims wrote:
And good from which perspective. Good for the universe may be bad for humanity.

After this time criticising God as evil, you throw a curve ball like this

Evil ? No. Just so far above humans that it is silly to assume our interests align perfectly.

The Grims wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:After this time criticising God as evil, you throw a curve ball like this

Evil ? No. Just so far above humans that it is silly to assume our interests align perfectly.

Which is the point I would have made in my "Is God good" thread

Australian rePublic wrote:

The Grims wrote:
Evil ? No. Just so far above humans that it is silly to assume our interests align perfectly.

Which is the point I would have made in my "Is God good" thread

You do realise it is one of the main arguments against christianity?

Uhm, yeah ... existence itself might just do it. So far, bupkis.

The Grims wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Which is the point I would have made in my "Is God good" thread

You do realise it is one of the main arguments against christianity?

Whether or not their god is good is an entirely separate question vs whether or not he exists.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

blx, you can't replenish the Earth, you can plenish it, but the Earth has never been plenished before, so you cannot replenish it.

Auristania wrote:

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

blx, you can't replenish the Earth, you can plenish it, but the Earth has never been plenished before, so you cannot replenish it.

I can see that you deliberately chose a translation that was written in 1611 with wordings that are confusing to those who live in 2019.

Those reading it in 1611 would understand it as "fill". That is why modern versions use "fill" instead of "replenish".

Try again.

Kill himself.

Lady Scylla wrote:Kill himself.

I question how He'd prove He'd done it...

On the other hand, I suppose it would mean that fundamentalist groups could no longer show those dreadful proselytising films God's Not Dead...

The Free Joy State wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:Kill himself.

I question how He'd prove it.

On the other hand, I suppose it would mean that fundamentalist groups could no longer show those dreadful proselytising films God's Not Dead...

If he can kill himself, is he really God? If he can't, then is he really God?

The Free Joy State wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:Kill himself.

I question how He'd prove He'd done it...

On the other hand, I suppose it would mean that fundamentalist groups could no longer show those dreadful proselytising films God's Not Dead...

The fact that there are three of those films alone is more than enough proof that there is no god.

Lady Scylla wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:I question how He'd prove it.

On the other hand, I suppose it would mean that fundamentalist groups could no longer show those dreadful proselytising films God's Not Dead...

If he can kill himself, is he really God? If he can't, then is he really God?

Christianity proves that not only can God kill himself, but that afterwords he'll never shut up about it.

Lady Scylla wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:I question how He'd prove it.

On the other hand, I suppose it would mean that fundamentalist groups could no longer show those dreadful proselytising films God's Not Dead...

If he can kill himself, is he really God? If he can't, then is he really God?

Wait for someone to accuse you of cheating.

"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

If you need proof, you're missing the point...

He has to play Ram Ranch on every Discord and TS server all at once.

The Union of the West wrote:"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

If you need proof, you're missing the point...

There is absolutely no reason why a God would or should think us believing something without adequate evidence is moral.

But there's every reason for somebody that wants you to believe something untrue to do so.

Lady Scylla wrote:Kill himself.

And cause the entire universe to collapse on itself? Nah. Not a good idea.