- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAn appeal to emotion ? Incest ?
How many of the early generations were produced by incest?
Funny how you toggle between what seem to be purely mechanical matters to sneak in a phrase to generate a moral accusation here and there.
"How many generations produced by INCEST ?"
Do you suggest that we are not all related at least distantly somehow?
And early humans marrying near relatives is not as bad as early humans marrying ape like or partially human animal/men.
Since for every question I ask you, you seem to have two or three for me as you ignore mine, I think this lopsided dialogue is enough for now.
Let's just say that you have even more insurmountable difficulty with the Flood account. But I think you probably believe hook, line, and sinker more preposterous things.
I bet you believe that there was no such thing as a FIRST human man and woman.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou don't like talking about the practical implications of your preferred folk story do you?
An appeal to emotion ? Incest ?
Funny how you toggle between what seem to be purely mechanical matters to sneak in a phrase to generate a moral accusation here and there.
"How many generations produced by INCEST ?"
Do you suggest that we are not all related at least distantly somehow?
And early humans marrying near relatives is not ...[text shortened]... have two or three for me as you ignore mine, I think t his lopsided dialogue is enough for now.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipNoah's family were "early humans"?
And early humans marrying near relatives is not as bad as early humans marrying ape like or partially human animal/men.
How do you explain the ethnic diversity in the world in the few thousand years since the Noah story is supposed to have taken place?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFA statement again. Once again. Just make your statement. You don't need to place your words into my mouth disguised as your question.
You don't like talking about the practical implications of your preferred folk story do you?
You want to say it is a folk tale, just say so. I don't say that. You say that - and put a question mark at the end.
Besides - a "folk story" can have basis in historical fact even if it is a "folk story."
I believe there are folk stories with an underlying historical basis. The underlying historical basis,I believe, is in the Bible's account.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipIt seems to me you got into a bit of a tangle about whether the flood was worldwide or local and so now you sound like you are half making stuff up that fits your "stance" and half trying to evade the simple core practical questions about your beliefs in supernatural events.
A statement again. Once again. Just make your statement. You don't need to place your words into my mouth disguised as your question.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipIt was passed down for thousands of years by word of mouth between people who did not even pretend to have witnessed it, wasn't it? What is it if it isn't a folk tale?
You want to say it is a folk tale, just say so. I don't say that. You say that - and put a question mark at the end.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd you contend that the "historical facts" are that the flood was a deliberate punishing act of mass slaughter by God, that everyone in the world except Noah's family was killed, and that all the people in the world are descended from Noah's sons. These, you would have us believe, are the "historical facts" which are the basis of the story?
Besides - a "folk story" can have basis in historical fact even if it is a "folk story."
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonshipThe stories in the bible have an underlying historical basis, and the underlying historical basis found in the bible is found in its stories. Is that what you mean?
I believe there are folk stories with an underlying historical basis. The underlying historical basis,I believe, is in the Bible's account.
13 Jul 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipYou are contradicting yourself then. Here you say you think everyone on Earth was drowned but you also said the flood probably wasn't world wide. Maybe you are looking at the implications of that particular fairy tale. Every civilization has tales about floods but none of them were world wide.
I believe Noah and his family were spared. Everyone else drowned.
Other possibilities I am willing to consider. But I am pretty certain that only Noah and family survived.
[quote] [b] " These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood." ...[text shortened]... e earth was populated. God knows all the facts.
Do you know that this flood did not occur ?
Then there is the issue that we know now humans have a genetic diversity that we would NEVER have if we had descended from one bunch on a boat.
Also the genetic diversity of animals that they would not have if they all came from one pair after all the rest were killed.
Then there is the issue of why your precious god would destroy all the land animals to spite some allegedly bad humans, millions of humans dead but literally hundreds of billions of completely innocent animals also. So humans in Australia who never heard of this god have to die because of some tribe that ticked of this alleged god?
Why don't you ever think about those implications? How can you believe such absolute nonsense?
A god capable of bringing in an entire universe would not also have the power to just off the bad humans thus not NEEDING for there to be a flood in the first place.
That story is just an allegory and was taken as such for thousands of years but now in the 21st century when you should know better because of the advances of science you say such nonsense as it makes more sense to believe the Noah fairy tale than men walking on the moon.
I was one of the people directly involved with Apollo and I take it as a personal insult people who try to make the big lie that men did not walk on the moon.
HOW DARE YOU? You dis our county's greatest achievement in science because you think the Noah story more credible?
The moon hoax pissses me off more than just about any other BS going on here.
I was at Goddard Space Flight center working Apollo tracking and timing and there is no way it was faked and I would punch out anyone who says otherwise if I was there in person just like Buzz Aldrin did to that assshole who kept bugging him with camera's rolling.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jul 16
1 edit
Sonhouse, you are blasphemous in your insults against God and your dirty vocabulary. I would talk with you but I don't like your dirty ways. Perhaps you do it on purpose to insult the Christian out of the conversation. It works.
They say you should not get down in the mud to wrestle with a pig. You might get dirty and the pig loves it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jul 16
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe tales of a large scale deluge such as have been collected from around the world, I think are the passed on collected memory of the people who came out of that flood. They spread out over the globe.
The stories in the bible have an underlying historical basis, and the underlying historical basis found in the bible is found in its stories. Is that what you mean?
The eight people passed it on to their descendants who in turn passed it on to theirs. Gradually it was tailored here and there to meet more colloquial needs. It was embellished to accommodate for cultural interests of various cultures.
That is what I meant. Those folk stories, I believe, have basis in history. And if we want to know what happened for real the revelation of God, the Bible. has to be read.
For example - the Gilgamesh tale has similarities. And the fact that Genesis may have been written after the creation of the Gilgamesh tale does not have to argue that Moses borrowed from it. I believe Noah and Moses knew the facts and the Gilgamesh legend was the embellishment. It may have been an embellished written version before the oral tradition reached Moses from which he drew.
Most skeptics would argue the other way around - Moses HAD to have copied the Sumerian Gilgamesh story. I think not. And I think the ancient Chinese account is along the same line in terms of sequence.