Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
692

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
haney1, you wanted a debate; here is your challenger. Rise up I say unto you, and save Christiandom with your debate.

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Challenge.html[/quote]

Let’s see his arguments, since you cannot make your own:
-Jesus’ endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah.

How does determine that Yahweh has a murderous immorality? He has to prove this point before it can be taken. An since Jesus is the incarnation of the word, I seriously doubt he’s going to have an issue with the word.

-Jesus’ doctrine of “eternal punishment” in the “eternal fire” of Hell

Jesus never had a doctrine of any sort, much less on hell. If this nimrod has “Jesus’s doctrine on hell” I damn sure would like to see it.

-Jesus’ failure to claim actual divinity

Proof this guy can’t fucking read. Gospel of John, period.

-Jesus’ failed prophecy of his imminent return
Is it the end of time and he didn’t come back yet? Oh it isn’t? Unless you can know more then God himself then you won’t know when it happens. Idiot.

-Jesus’ failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness

He never did any doctrines of any kind. That wasn’t his purpose. This has nothing to do with Christianity, at all.

-# Jesus’ failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;

Yeah, that whole raising people from the dead is easily explained…It just took them longer than normal to heal.

-Jesus’ failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine

Uh, yeah. The most famous and historically significant person to ever live…Wow! he sure messed that up.

[/quote]

I provided some answers too on the thread I started.
[/quote]

You provided no such thing. You provided tripe. You sir are disingenous - alternately begging for debate, starting a different thread for the purpose of debate, yet claiming recent child and no time to debate. Make up your feeble mind.[/quote]

693

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
haney1, you wanted a debate; here is your challenger. Rise up I say unto you, and save Christiandom with your debate.

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Challenge.html[/quote]

Let’s see his arguments, since you cannot make your own:
-Jesus’ endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah.

How does determine that Yahweh has a murderous immorality? He has to prove this point before it can be taken. An since Jesus is the incarnation of the word, I seriously doubt he’s going to have an issue with the word.

-Jesus’ doctrine of “eternal punishment” in the “eternal fire” of Hell

Jesus never had a doctrine of any sort, much less on hell. If this nimrod has “Jesus’s doctrine on hell” I damn sure would like to see it.

-Jesus’ failure to claim actual divinity

Proof this guy can’t fucking read. Gospel of John, period.

-Jesus’ failed prophecy of his imminent return
Is it the end of time and he didn’t come back yet? Oh it isn’t? Unless you can know more then God himself then you won’t know when it happens. Idiot.

-Jesus’ failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness

He never did any doctrines of any kind. That wasn’t his purpose. This has nothing to do with Christianity, at all.

-# Jesus’ failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;

Yeah, that whole raising people from the dead is easily explained…It just took them longer than normal to heal.

-Jesus’ failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine

Uh, yeah. The most famous and historically significant person to ever live…Wow! he sure messed that up.

[/quote]

You’re about as good at this as you are in physics. The above is weak. Terribly weak. That’s your rebuttal? READ the contents of the page, put together your thesis, REFUTE the arguments.[/quote]

I did. It’s garbage and hardly worth my time. His premises are shit. They are flat inaccurate in many cases. He made them up or just put together a bunch of talking points.Then he presumes the apostles kind of made shit up as they went along.

Further, his premises don’t fit his very ambiguous conclusion, which as far as I can figure is that Christianity based on the false premise of Jesus divinity? Or that God doesn’t exist or something like that.

This idiot is a joke.

694

How pathetic you are. Really. Your replies are really pathetic. By the way, call the guy an idiot, but the only idiot here is the one that fails to recognize the age old arguments against your good book - this guy hardly invented these talking points.

But you’re obviously not acquainted with them. That’s how serious you have been to scholarship and discovery. If it doesn’t fit your dogman, it’s crap. If it doesn’t agree with you, they are an idiot. Tell me good sir, on what terms could anyone debate anything with you? Don’t answer that. I don’t care.

695

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
haney1, you wanted a debate; here is your challenger. Rise up I say unto you, and save Christiandom with your debate.

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Challenge.html[/quote]

Let’s see his arguments, since you cannot make your own:
-Jesus’ endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah.

How does determine that Yahweh has a murderous immorality? He has to prove this point before it can be taken. An since Jesus is the incarnation of the word, I seriously doubt he’s going to have an issue with the word.

-Jesus’ doctrine of “eternal punishment” in the “eternal fire” of Hell

Jesus never had a doctrine of any sort, much less on hell. If this nimrod has “Jesus’s doctrine on hell” I damn sure would like to see it.

-Jesus’ failure to claim actual divinity

Proof this guy can’t fucking read. Gospel of John, period.

-Jesus’ failed prophecy of his imminent return
Is it the end of time and he didn’t come back yet? Oh it isn’t? Unless you can know more then God himself then you won’t know when it happens. Idiot.

-Jesus’ failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness

He never did any doctrines of any kind. That wasn’t his purpose. This has nothing to do with Christianity, at all.

-# Jesus’ failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;

Yeah, that whole raising people from the dead is easily explained…It just took them longer than normal to heal.

-Jesus’ failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine

Uh, yeah. The most famous and historically significant person to ever live…Wow! he sure messed that up.

[/quote]

You’re about as good at this as you are in physics. The above is weak. Terribly weak. That’s your rebuttal? READ the contents of the page, put together your thesis, REFUTE the arguments.[/quote]

I did. It’s garbage and hardly worth my time. His premises are shit. They are flat inaccurate in many cases. He made them up or just put together a bunch of talking points.Then he presumes the apostles kind of made shit up as they went along.

Further, his premises don’t fit his very ambiguous conclusion, which as far as I can figure is that Christianity based on the false premise of Jesus divinity? Or that God doesn’t exist or something like that.

This idiot is a joke.[/quote]

I guess this speaks volumes about the person who eats this up as their beleifs, but they are his beleifs, and he is welcome to them. We have Free Will.

696

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.

697

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

Someone didn’t read the links.

698

[quote]mse2us wrote:
I read the verses what does that picture have to do with the verses. Please explain for the mathmatically challenged people.[/quote]

[i]I Kings 7:23-26

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it â?? ten to a cubit.

The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. (NIV)[/i]

You know what pi is right?

And the point was actually about other things. Think about where teach the controversy comes from.

700

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I love this:

“The God of the Torah’s holy scrolls is far too pedestrian in his works, parochial in his concerns, petty in his decisions, and primitive in his policies.”

Spot on.

Here you go, refute the claims; complete with Biblical references.

[/quote]

OK - since it is debate by website we are doing:

http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html

now you refute his point by point refutation of Brian Holtz’s pathetic nonsense

701

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

You obviously did not read it. He pointed out numerous problems with the gospels, contradictions, etc. and so forth. They are hardly invented arguments. They are hardly even original. You sir, are an idiot.
YO

702

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

Someone didn’t read the links.[/quote]

Exactly. He isn’t happy just butchering physics with his “bro physics”. He’s taking on religion too. He’s ridiculous.

703

When I was a young boy, my grandparents, who I would visit each summer, lived in a Valley where thunder and lightening storms were quite impressive. Explaining to me as a young child that the thunder was merely the Angels “bowling”. Well, I didn’t quite believe that then, but I’m pretty sure some of you hear have no problem believing that today. Have fun :slight_smile:

As for the bananarepublican referenced, I’d encourage him to submit his thesis in the agreeable format and let the debate begin. As far as I can see, there is no such debate. Encourage your conqueror. I’d like to follow along. Let’s see who stands up.

704

^ dodge

705

I just watched an interesting show on National Geographic about the search for Noah’s Ark. Anyone else seen it?

706

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

You obviously did not read it. He pointed out numerous problems with the gospels, contradictions, etc. and so forth. They are hardly invented arguments. They are hardly even original. You sir, are an idiot.
YO[/quote]

Everybody knows the contradictions where the are and what they mean.
Yes, and they are all bad, his premises are badly done and incorrect. But you’re to stupid to recognize it apparently.

707

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Exactly. He isn’t happy just butchering physics with his “bro physics”. He’s taking on religion too. He’s ridiculous.[/quote]

Funnily enough, you can’t prove me wrong, I have practically begged you to try. All you could say is “We’re done”.
Prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

708

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

You obviously did not read it. He pointed out numerous problems with the gospels, contradictions, etc. and so forth. They are hardly invented arguments. They are hardly even original. You sir, are an idiot.
YO[/quote]

Here you go:

More elitist dick for you to suck.

709

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

You obviously did not read it. He pointed out numerous problems with the gospels, contradictions, etc. and so forth. They are hardly invented arguments. They are hardly even original. You sir, are an idiot.
YO[/quote]

Here you go:

More elitist dick for you to suck.[/quote]

You have to love the burden of proof Brian Holtz requires to believe in Jesus.

"Any god could trivially inscribe or authenticate its revealed message through supernatural patterns (in cosmological or quantum phenomena) or ongoing miracles (such as prophecy or communication with a spirit world).

I also describe the two kinds of evidence that would have to surface for the divinity of Jesus to be believable:
Textual discoveries that Jesus did not believe in the literal truth of the entire Old Testament, and that the unjust Christian notion of eternal damnation is a misunderstanding.
Compelling corroboration of New Testament miracles through physical artifacts (e.g. the Shroud of Turin) or historical records (e.g. of the three-hour darkness on Good Friday). "

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/MyConversion.htm

I am surprised He didn’t ask that Jesus beat him at a game of hopscotch too.

710

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

You obviously did not read it. He pointed out numerous problems with the gospels, contradictions, etc. and so forth. They are hardly invented arguments. They are hardly even original. You sir, are an idiot.
YO[/quote]

Here you go:

More elitist dick for you to suck.[/quote]

You have to love the burden of proof Brian Holtz requires to believe in Jesus.

"Any god could trivially inscribe or authenticate its revealed message through supernatural patterns (in cosmological or quantum phenomena) or ongoing miracles (such as prophecy or communication with a spirit world).

I also describe the two kinds of evidence that would have to surface for the divinity of Jesus to be believable:
Textual discoveries that Jesus did not believe in the literal truth of the entire Old Testament, and that the unjust Christian notion of eternal damnation is a misunderstanding.
Compelling corroboration of New Testament miracles through physical artifacts (e.g. the Shroud of Turin) or historical records (e.g. of the three-hour darkness on Good Friday). "

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/MyConversion.htm

I am surprised He didn’t ask that Jesus beat him at a game of hopscotch too.
[/quote]

I liked the other one that asked why Jesus didn’t perform grand miracles like making a mountain or something. Sorry Jesus wasn’t more to your liking last time. Maybe when he comes back he can live up to your expectations.

711

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

More sarcasim right? I get it that is pretty funny.[/quote]

You’re terrible at this.

Let’s end this by simply stating that I will never believe what you believe, and you likewise. You will NOT refute the arguments set forth in that text because you CANNOT. And that my dear friends, is the crux of the division among believers and non-believers. [/quote]

There’s nothing to refute. It’s made up shit, and done very poorly. His premises are wrong, hell it’s not even an argument. It’s just a mess of shit he finds wrong with Christianity. Things ain’t the way he thinks they ought to be, big fucking deal.

That’s all he argued is that Christianity isn’t set up the way he thinks it should have been done and therefore it is false. There are so many logical fallacies in there it’s uncountable. his biggest problem is he does not understand the subject matter.
[/quote]

You obviously did not read it. He pointed out numerous problems with the gospels, contradictions, etc. and so forth. They are hardly invented arguments. They are hardly even original. You sir, are an idiot.
YO[/quote]

Here you go:

More elitist dick for you to suck.[/quote]

You have to love the burden of proof Brian Holtz requires to believe in Jesus.

"Any god could trivially inscribe or authenticate its revealed message through supernatural patterns (in cosmological or quantum phenomena) or ongoing miracles (such as prophecy or communication with a spirit world).

I also describe the two kinds of evidence that would have to surface for the divinity of Jesus to be believable:
Textual discoveries that Jesus did not believe in the literal truth of the entire Old Testament, and that the unjust Christian notion of eternal damnation is a misunderstanding.
Compelling corroboration of New Testament miracles through physical artifacts (e.g. the Shroud of Turin) or historical records (e.g. of the three-hour darkness on Good Friday). "

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/MyConversion.htm

I am surprised He didn’t ask that Jesus beat him at a game of hopscotch too.
[/quote]

I liked the other one that asked why Jesus didn’t perform grand miracles like making a mountain or something. Sorry Jesus wasn’t more to your liking last time. Maybe when he comes back he can live up to your expectations.[/quote]

But then it is too late.