Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
606

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.[/quote]

Well, for instance, Allah and the Christian God are absolutely one in the same. As well as the Hebrew God. Right there we have covered Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. That aside, and putting aside a literal anthropomorphic God, what is it you think everyone is worshipping? If you would concur that no one is literally worshipping a white bearded man on a throne somewhere, does it matter by what name or names a people call him? Either you believe in a personal jealous God, or you believe in a higher power that cannot be expressed with our understanding. If it is the latter, what matters by what name or identity it is? If it is the former, you are in the orthodox camp.
[/quote]

Still going to disagree. Here’s why. If the character of the thing, its essence is one thing - it cannot be another. Moloch was not Yahweh, Baal was not Buddha - there are distinct characteristics (personalities if you will) that cannot be reconciled to each other. The Gods of Hindu are not the Tao, the Ancestors of Shinto are not the Gods upon Mt Olympus. If the personality is not the same, the traits and actions are not the same, then it cannot be the same being - thus the claim of false and true gods

If you believe in an all encompassing personal deity that is not the same as someone who believes in an inanimate force.

Sorry, jusy can;t follow you there - can you explain your position any clearer?

609

no problem - I’ll never discuss a religious topic with you again.

611

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
no problem - I’ll never discuss a religious topic with you again.[/quote]

I was not talking about you, I’m referencing what Maddox talked about as far as trying to change the opinions of others.

Not to say that he has done that on this thread, either, because he hasn’t, but he did reference some kind of interest in doing so, I presume, in real life to people.

I’m just trying to give the opposite point of view, and explain why some folks like me lose their fuckin heads over it. [/quote]

Fair enough, and trust me, I grew up in very fundamentalists circles (for several faiths) and I have seen the worst of the worst proselytizers, endured hour long “invitations”, sat through marathon sermons - I am very sensitive to the “over-the-top” witnessing some people pratice. But I didn’t think that was maddox was trying to do that merely expressing he willingness to share his belief IF given an opportunity. You and I know his posts and he never demands anyone’s accetance of his beliefs.

Come to think of it - he’s pretty mild mannered most of the time. me on the other had - lol

Thanks for taking to express and I hope I didn’t offend

612

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
no problem - I’ll never discuss a religious topic with you again.[/quote]

I was not talking about you, I’m referencing what Maddox talked about as far as trying to change the opinions of others.

Not to say that he has done that on this thread, either, because he hasn’t, but he did reference some kind of interest in doing so, I presume, in real life to people.

I’m just trying to give the opposite point of view, and explain why some folks like me lose their fuckin heads over it. [/quote]

Dude, I apologize if I offended you, but my reply was to TheBodyGuard. You ran with my reply to him. I then heaped a lot of crap on it by jumping back at you. My beleifs are my beleifs, and I take personal offense when someone tells me my God is fake. I have not brought my religious views into any thread that did not have a religious title in anyway.

Again I am sorry. By the way I am sorry for calling you Rosie all the time. I will stop.

614

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.[/quote]

Well, for instance, Allah and the Christian God are absolutely one in the same. As well as the Hebrew God. Right there we have covered Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. That aside, and putting aside a literal anthropomorphic God, what is it you think everyone is worshipping? If you would concur that no one is literally worshipping a white bearded man on a throne somewhere, does it matter by what name or names a people call him? Either you believe in a personal jealous God, or you believe in a higher power that cannot be expressed with our understanding. If it is the latter, what matters by what name or identity it is? If it is the former, you are in the orthodox camp.
[/quote]

You getting your information on all the gods from your “Serious Academia?” Many Muslims, Christians, and Jews would disagree on saying that their God is the same as the other groups.[/quote]

Well then you sir are out of your depth and should not participate further. The Jews and Muslims only differ on God with the Christians on the issue of Jesus as both do not recognize him as the messiah or a son of God. Both Jews and Muslims still believe in the same God as the Christians.

615

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Body and Irish,

I understand that you may not want a Christian telling you what they believe in an effort to save your soul as dmaddox has expressed, but let’s put this into a different context.

We are all on this site because we love the iron (psyched for workout tomorrow) now, if you saw one of your friends trying to do a front squat with a screwed up form, arms at weird angles and wearing cowboy boots, you would be excused for stepping in and trying to offer some assistance/correction to his form, right? Now it may turn out that he is some kind of were masochist with a boot fetish, alright, you gave your input and left the decision up to him. That is all that dmaddox was proposing - he cares genuinely about others, wants to give them the info if given an opportunity and then leave the decision up to them. Nothing more than that.

Can you not understand that if your really cared about someone, knew some info that might be of great help to them, you would be inclined to at least share the info - even if they never used it?

Not saying you have to agree, not saying that you have to listen to him preach at you every 5 minutes - simply lets let each other present our views, express them sincerely and leave the decision up to the other person.

I personaly love discussing issues with people of opposite, different or unique beliefs, because it challenges mine, might bring me some new enlightenment and offers the chance to build relationships with people i admire and respect (yes, even with Dustin).

anyway, just my two cents - may not mean anything to you guys, but I would want your input if it could help me, that’s all[/quote]

LOL well I disagree with you that my squat form is poor. End of story.

616

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.[/quote]

Well, for instance, Allah and the Christian God are absolutely one in the same. As well as the Hebrew God. Right there we have covered Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. That aside, and putting aside a literal anthropomorphic God, what is it you think everyone is worshipping? If you would concur that no one is literally worshipping a white bearded man on a throne somewhere, does it matter by what name or names a people call him? Either you believe in a personal jealous God, or you believe in a higher power that cannot be expressed with our understanding. If it is the latter, what matters by what name or identity it is? If it is the former, you are in the orthodox camp.
[/quote]

Still going to disagree. Here’s why. If the character of the thing, its essence is one thing - it cannot be another. Moloch was not Yahweh, Baal was not Buddha - there are distinct characteristics (personalities if you will) that cannot be reconciled to each other. The Gods of Hindu are not the Tao, the Ancestors of Shinto are not the Gods upon Mt Olympus. If the personality is not the same, the traits and actions are not the same, then it cannot be the same being - thus the claim of false and true gods

If you believe in an all encompassing personal deity that is not the same as someone who believes in an inanimate force.

Sorry, jusy can;t follow you there - can you explain your position any clearer?[/quote]

Yup. The jews, muslims and christians all worship the same god. period. fact. i think we have covered most of the world, save for the budhists et als.

617

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
no problem - I’ll never discuss a religious topic with you again.[/quote]

I was not talking about you, I’m referencing what Maddox talked about as far as trying to change the opinions of others.

Not to say that he has done that on this thread, either, because he hasn’t, but he did reference some kind of interest in doing so, I presume, in real life to people.

I’m just trying to give the opposite point of view, and explain why some folks like me lose their fuckin heads over it. [/quote]

Dude, I apologize if I offended you, but my reply was to TheBodyGuard. You ran with my reply to him. I then heaped a lot of crap on it by jumping back at you. My beleifs are my beleifs, and I take personal offense when someone tells me my God is fake. I have not brought my religious views into any thread that did not have a religious title in anyway.

Again I am sorry. By the way I am sorry for calling you Rosie all the time. I will stop.[/quote]

I didn’t say your God was fake. How can you debate if you don’t know what is being discussed. I say your bible is corrupted. Terribly corrupted. And that’s a fact.

623

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

It’s one thing to think outside the box. It is another entirely to discard the laws of physics, especially when your solution is to invent skyhooks.[/quote]

So much for open minded discussion

Seriously? Your little mental box is so small you cannot even entertain a concept? Did I say that my idea had to hold to a specific timeline? - no, Did I say that my idea had to fit any particular narrative? - no.

All I did was offer a novel concept that would have allowed for a mass global flood from a unique perspective of a flatter pre-flood world that would be vastly different from the post-flood world - that’s it - but your anti-biblical bigotry won’t even let your feeble faculties stretch that far, eh?

too bad for you . . . keep thinking small, my friend, keep thinking small[/quote]

No, I can’t grasp how you think tectonic shift on a scale that creates mountains wouldn’t be noticed by adjacent civilizations.

Just because I pick at flaws in your half baked stories, doesn’t make me close minded. My so called anti-biblical bigotry doesn’t come into this, it’s simply a case of you making up a story that isn’t feasible and you getting called out on it.[/quote]

uh . . . wow . . . ok, let me try one more time and I will type really slowly this time: nooo . . spe-ci-fic . . . time-line . . . nooo . . . spe-ci-fic . . . nar-ra-tive

This would mean that this was an exercise in conceptual thought - since so many cultures have a flood myth, since people have raised all sorts of objections to it - how could one have occurred (very important phrase after this parantheses) in a theoretical sense ABSENT ANY PARTICULAR TIMELINE (this means . . . noooo . . . par-ti-cu-lar . . . poi-nt . . .in . . . hi-sto-ry . . . there-fore . . . your . . . com-ment . . . a-bout . . . oth-er . . .civ-i-li-za-tions. . . is . . . moot)

again - keep your mind closed, it’s obviously safer for you that way . . .[/quote]

But now your hypothesis suggests we throw out a good portion of scientific knowledge that has more proof that your fairy tales based on unprovable speculation.

Awesome.

624

[quote]Makavali wrote:

But now your hypothesis suggests we throw out a good portion of scientific knowledge that has more proof that your fairy tales based on unprovable speculation.

Awesome.[/quote]

keeping it closed - stay strong!

627

nm

630

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

.[/quote]

You can keep talking, but as I’ve stated… you’re just not that intelligent. I don’t blame you, but I’m not going to humor your bullshit either.

Anyone can pull opinions off of some whackjob bible thumper website and call them facts, but most folks know that Jefferson was a deist, as were most of the founding fathers, and Thomas Paine, who I’ve studied alot, had nothing but contempt for organized religion.

Why? Probably because they realized its absolutely pathetic that grown men dismiss science in order to believe in fairy tales… like someone I know on here. So again Push, you can keep responding, but I refuse to argue with someone who is so damned stupid that they think the earth is only a couple centuries old.[/quote]

Thomas Jefferson was a deist to the point that he denied almost ALL the New Testament. He actually cut out the parts of the New Testament that featured miracles or any reference to Jesus being God. He felt these irrational.

I strongly urge anyone, believer and non believer alike, to find sources to back what they claim. I still believe it is possible to have a real discussion void of insults and presuppositions. Please don’t prove me wrong.