Genghis Khan killed a lot too though
@ TouchMyCatEars, but he helped replace a lot of them at the same time
@ TouchMyCatEars, I'd say that while Genghis Khan did certainly kill a lot of people, his intentions were wildly different than Hitler's. And while that doesn't justify it, I'd say that it at least still makes Hitler an objectively worse person. Also Genghis Khan planted trees anywhere he conquered, because he thought they were important. And I'd say that trees are arguably better than people sometimes.
@karibeson, 'From Poland to Korea, I ravaged the land! Now my DNA's in dudes from New York to Japan!'
Yea you right.
@ TouchMyCatEars, What about our boy Mao Tsé-Tung?
@Marida Cruz, Hitler is a punk compared to Stalin and Mao
@big freedom, I will agree with that.
@SirLordKraftDinner, Shh, he might hear you.
Even if we look at this from a mythological standpoint some time before the flood God told Noah to warn people which he did just so. Their deaths were because they did not listen.
*cough* Mao Zhedong *cough*
It says history, not mythology. The story of Noah’s Ark is fictional.
Also, Darth Nihilus killed way more people, so if we’re including made up dudes...
@I Are Lebo, you can't prove he didn't exist any more than I can. That doesn't make him fiction. Records of history become more difficult to validate the longer back you go. Large enough natural disasters could be overexaggerated. Had the polar icecaps melted at one point, it could have appeared to be covering the whole earth, but how on earth would they have known?
edit: I'm mostly just trying to point out the distinction between fiction and nonfiction with regards to scriptural records, not so much the veracity of claims made. Scriptures are nonfiction unless the authors say otherwise. That does not make them correct, but they are CLAIMING it to be.
@I Are Lebo, I love this logic
@Empshok, the tale of Noah (and most of the Bible) is an amalgamation of stories taken from previously established mythologies. There’s a paper trail that can be followed. Whether or not there was a historical Noah whom the stories were based on, the character of the man who built a massive wooden boat on God’s orders and put 2 of each animal onto to save them from a global flood is 100% fictional.
There is no evidence supporting a global flood and literal tons of evidence contradicting it. The polar ice caps not only would not be anywhere near enough water to cover the earth, but they wouldn’t even release enough water to flood the Middle East.
The story of Noah and the Ark is 100% fictitious. It breaks the laws of physics, it defies the laws of biology, and you don’t get to claim that something could have happened simply because it hasn’t been conclusively disproven. That’s irrational. By that argument, Santa Claus can’t be said to not be real.
@I Are Lebo, I'm not saying it is irrefutably true, but it was written with the intention to be believed to be. The authors did not mean for it to be fiction, but through the lenses of time, culture, language, and intent, it has taken on the appearance of fiction. I don't blame anybody for doubting it, but I believe that the events happened, perhaps differently than recorded, but that's not quite as important. What matters is what we can learn from these stories.
@I Are Lebo, the story of Noah is, among other things, a lesson about ignorance. Noah warned them of an impending flood, made a giant boat, and invited others to get on with him. Now, that would be enough to draw my interest, if nothing else. I'd likely talk with him, ask for evidence, and verify/rule out that evidence. Blind obedience leads to Jonestown, but ignorance to anything we don't fully understand can be just as bad. Take the measles outbreaks. All they did was refuse to jump on board, but now they and their children suffer for their ignorance.
tl:dr, get on the right boats, stay off the wrong ones. Question something if you don't understand it, don't just refuse to entertain the concept that your perspective is wrong. We all suffer from ignorance, but we can choose to what extent.
@Empshok, I'm sorry but you're gonna need to explain that comment to me. It seems like you're saying that whoever made up the story wanted to people to believe it was true so it's not fiction. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you, because that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works...
@ThePandaPool , I'm saying that I believe the stories were true from the perspectives of the original authors. If I said the word "5ever" to you, you would undetstand it to be a goofy exaggeration of forever, but 50 years down the road it's context may be lost. Imagine trying to write a story without the use of common phrasing. Then try to translate that story from Hebrew to Latin, and then to English (and probably more in between). Then factor in human error, and then factor in the likelihood of intentional manipulation for your own agenda. I mean, I refuse to accept that whatever they were reading to motivate them to rape and pillage in the guise of religious "crusades" is not what Moses, Abraham, Matthew, or Paul had in mind. I argue, that if read in context, the stories are more or less true...but likely with some embellishment. It is enough to motivate one person to do good, but easily enough for another to choose evil. But that can be said about anything, really. (Ctnd)
@ThePandaPool , that's why I believe God will judge us based upon what we know. We are really, really good at confusing ourselves and others, and we don't keep very reliable records. So I invite you to continue to seek answers and don't just accept anything. Decide what matters most to you, like happiness, family, justice, truth, etc. If an LDS bishop tells you that you're going to hell for being gay, don't just accept that as LDS doctrine, although if you did, I wouldn't blame you, but God will hold that bishop accountable for misleading. I'm not saying to accept scripture as fact or fiction. But fiction is transparent, not trying to convince you otherwise. The causal relationships are speculatory, whereas nonfiction claims them to be true. Nonfiction has added motive to deceive but greater potential for truth.
@ThePandaPool , I present the Bible and Book of Mormon to be nonfiction for this purpose. We claim them to possess a great deal of truth, but honestly we favor the BoM because we claim it was translated by the authority of God, and much more recently than the Bible. We present that without disguise; if God exists, and He authorized Joseph Smith to translate the record of the ancient American people, the Book of Mormon is an accurate record written for the primary purpose of guiding us to eternal happiness, and if it is NOT true, Joseph Smith was a fraud and a manipulating psychopath with a very keen intellect.
Anyway, I need to do homework for Health Assessment and probably all my other classes now. But if you have questions or concerns, I'll do my best to respond.
@Empshok, I didnt need all that. Lol. It may have just been me, but the way i understood your first comment it seemed like a really stupid statement, but now i understand what you were trying to say. Now you're mormon, or just studying that stuff?
@ThePandaPool , LDS, but we used to go by mormons. But we want to clarify who we are trying to represent, Jesus Christ, rather than Mormon, who's a cool cat but not a god.
@I Are Lebo, you: multiple cultures recorded it, so it must be false
me: Um... what?
@Empshok, this is sophistry. There is an important question, and you are doing an excellent job of dodging it. The question is “is it true?” Do the details given accurately reflect reality? If the events happened differently than the story, the story isn’t true. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that a flood of some significance occurred in an area of some importance. It’s not reasonable to conclude that all life was wiped from the planet save for a boatload of people and animals under the protection of a deity.
You can draw lessons from fiction. There is no correlation between the moral of a story and its veracity.
What’s more, your bible advocates blind obedience and shows that clearly with the story of Isaac. The biblical God makes a regular practice of punishing skepticism.
It’s not about suffering from ignorance. Truth is not perspective based. You tell us not to just accept things but that’s exactly how you’re treating the Bible/BoM.
@TomPholio, so dragons are real then, since multiple cultures recorded it?
Why don’t you do yourself a favour and google Gilgamesh? That story will seem quite familiar in a lot of ways for you, I’d imagine.
@I Are Lebo, yeah if multiple cultures described a dragon the same way, then yes, I would believe there was a creature they based that on, but dragons are very different depending on the culture, so there's no reason to consider them true. Or even to call them all dragons for that matter.
You want me to Google a story to see how similar it is to a bible story? But my whole point is that of course multiple cultures would have recorded an event that had widespread effects.
@Empshok, please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, because it really seems like your argument boils down to “the people who wrote the story down believed it was true”.
If that’s your argument, it’s a bad one.
@TomPholio, you’re misunderstanding. No other culture on earth at that time recorded the event. Historical documentation refutes the story, it doesn’t support it. My point was that the story matches MYTHS told by other cultures. The character Zeus, for instance, shows up in dozens of cultures in various forms under different names, including as Jehovah in the Bible. They’re all slightly different in each form, in much the same way that dragons differ.
That’s how human storytelling works. We build upon previously established foundations. Star Wars: A New Hope is an excellent case study of this, in particular The Hero’s Journey, as well as a variety of themes and character archetypes.
Christianity has acted like a cultural sponge for millennia, absorbing other faiths by abolishing the worship of heathen gods while maintaining a semblance of the cultural traditions. That’s why there are so many different sects. It’s also why the holidays are on the days that they are.
@I Are Lebo, I'm not misunderstanding. You're not being consistent.
Myth are born largely out of a need to explain actual phenomena. To the people who start them, they aren't myth at all, but accounts of their own history. Sure we can disprove parts of them in hindsight, but multiple cultures having similar accounts DOES mean it was more likely to happen in one form or another.
And it's not Christianity that's in question here, it's Hebrew accounts of history.
@TomPholio, that’s ludicrous. The people who wrote about Hercules didn’t actually meet the guy. Nor did the ones who wrote about Christ. It’s not an account of your own history when the story you’re writing down happened (allegedly) centuries before you were born. Oral histories are notorious for being unreliable.
What’s far more important is my original point, that the story is fictitious. Even if I was to accept your assertion that the root of myth is history, “based on a true story” is not the same thing as being an actual true story.
The story of Noah and the Ark is not a true story. It did not actually happen. There was never a global flood. There was never a boat containing two of all species used to keep said species alive via repopulation.
It is absolutely Christianity that is at question here. The meme is referencing Noah on the topic of historical figures. Noah is not a historical figure. He is a mythical one. Much like King Arthur, he never actually existed. Fiction.
@TomPholio, the Greeks didn’t think it was myth that Apollo rode the sun across the sky. That doesn’t mean Apollo actually did so or even existed.
@Empshok, the epic of gilgamesh would like a word with you since large portions of the first bit of genesis were pretty much plagiarized from it
@I Are Lebo, I am facepalming so hard at this thread. It’s hard to believe.. “it’s true because it’s a story that got passed down for thousand of years”...? Really? Have these people never played the telephone game? A story doesn’t make it through 30 people without being a completely different story.
@big freedom, exactly. Oral histories change drastically within the same generation, after several generations, they’re garbled beyond belief.
I find it odd how many religious people are just so utterly incapable of skepticism, but only in regards to their religion.
@I Are Lebo, same. That or the belief in a righteous government, which is the new religion.
@big freedom, I mean, if you’re talking about radical leftists, I don’t think it’s that they believe in a righteous government, I think it’s more that they hold cognitive dissonance. After all, a lot of these loonies are simultaneously arguing for the banning of guns while calling the sitting president a fascist tyrant.
As much as I like to point out the futility of fighting against a superpower like the USA with a militia or using guerrilla tactics on US soil, if the populace is already disarmed, that opens the opportunity for a tyrannical government to abuse and exploit the people without fear of meaningful reprisal.
SJWs aren’t opposed to tyranny in principle. They just want to be the tyrant.
So it’s less a belief in righteous government, I think, and more that they think they ARE that government.
@I Are Lebo, I just mean the idea that so many people are without any skepticism of government or at least their party. They worship them exactly the same way religious people worship their god. It’s remarkable in its similarities.
@big freedom, it’s a very similar logic train. I’ve long since been at the point where I can’t understand how anyone can identify as either a Republican or a Democrat.
@I Are Lebo, the idea behind our government is that we are the government, so in that I somewhat agree. The major difference is that I believe that the government is not here to give us stuff and to tell us how to live our lives. We form a government to protect individual liberties and provide a national defense. That’s it. Not enforce morals, not enforce “equality”, not enforce “progress” or impede progress, and certainly not to enforce one set of beliefs over another. The sjw crowd claims to love diversity, but are the first to silence anyone that has a diversity of thought.
@big freedom, indeed. They are collectively a bunch of short sighted, self centred, and often extremely ignorant morons. There are countless examples throughout history of cultures collapsing and/or committing atrocities on their own people because they attempted to become moral states.
Objective morality only exists in the absence of nuance, and people who ignore or deny nuance are the ones who end up becoming systematic abusers.
It’s ironic, really. The far left claim to be standing up for the oppressed, but they’re the ones who want to destroy the entire lives of those they don’t like. Look at how the radical leftists treat Jordan Peterson or Milo Yiannopolous. Neither of them have ever done anything harmful to anyone, it’s just talk. And yet the radical leftists would see them homeless, jobless, and silenced.
There’s a question I’ve asked multiple times, and the answers I’ve gotten from far left leaning people is terrifying. (Cont)
The question is “as a culture, what should we do with racists?” If there’s someone who has broken no laws, never assaulted or actually discriminated against a particular demographic, let’s say black people, but openly holds racist views, what should we do? I’m talking a guy who is like “I don’t think black people deserve less rights or anything, I just don’t like them and don’t want to be around them. They’re emotionally unstable and they commit loads of crime.“
Nearly every leftist I’ve asked has told me (in a roundabout way, of course) that such an individual should be fired from any job they have (or any business that refused to fire them should be boycotted), that any significant other they have should leave them, that they should be denied child custody if they have kids, that they should be removed from all social media, and that they should be shunned by society and made into a total pariah until they repent and change their mind.
This idea of punishing wrong-think is bad.
As in, the kind of bad that collapses societies. If these SJWs ever manage to seize real authoritarian power (and it could be argued that in the UK and EU they have), the atrocities are inevitable. Whether it’s people being imprisoned or unpersoned for speaking out against radical Islam (Tommy Robinson), or jailed and charged for making a racy joke (Count Dankula), or arrested and harassed for being rude to a member of a protected class (Kate Scottow).
It’s really scary.
@Empshok, also, just for the record, you can’t prove that Voldemort doesn’t exist, and yet he’s fictional, so the logic of your original comment is majorly flawed.
@I Are Lebo, okay. I feel like we are not totally speaking the same language exactly, so let me try to express my views on biblical stories and such. I don't really care if the story of Noah is true. Christianity doesn't need it to be, because despite what some Christians think, the Bible is not infallible. It is laden with flaws and mistakes. Alone, I do not believe it to be enough to differentiate between all good and evil. I believe that to be the major reason for so many branches of Christianity. All that being said, what exactly are we arguing about?
@Empshok, we are arguing about truth and reality. If you don’t care whether or not the stories involved are true, then further dialogue becomes pointless.
I care about whether or not the things I believe are true. As a rational person, if I’m presented with evidence or a demonstration that a belief I am holding isn’t rationally justified, I’m forced by reason to abandon that belief. Christians (and other religious people) either don’t see things this way or can’t. I’m not concerned with the morals a story can impart because that’s entirely subjective. People can walk away from the same stories with vastly different morals. This is how you can have Christians who argue for people to be treated with compassion and empathy and others (from the same sect even) arguing for certain demographics of people to be afforded less rights.
This is the danger of disregarding truth. As Steven Weinberg said...
“With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
When you disregard whether or not the basis of your moral framework is rooted in truth, you allow yourself to accept all manner of immoral premises as truth without critical examination. The concept of sin, in particular, is an extremely dangerous concept that has led to otherwise good people butchering each other and committing all sorts of atrocities in the name of their god.
Whether or not the fable of Noah is true doesn’t matter for the sake of Noah. It matters because when you take fairy tales as historical records, you warp your own logical pathways and that has all manner of side effects when it comes to socially cohesive behaviours.
@I Are Lebo, I understand your concerns a lot better now. Honestly, you present an important point that I completely agree with. "Sin" as defined in my faith concerns willful violation of covenants made with God. They are personal and individual. I'd say one of the most carefully defined commandments is the judgement of others. Condemnation of others is one of the most serious sins we can commit. If you recall, Christ told the people that the two great commandments are love for God and love for one another, with ALL other commandments hinging on those two. [Cntd]
@I Are Lebo, as far as I am aware, you have not made covenants with God. If that is true, you are incapable of sin. But let's say you have made covenants with God and breached those. Most often, I won't know, and if I do, it's usually because I'm also breaching my own covenants.
It's really, really hard to keep all of my covenants. And I'm sure that's true for everyone. And you know what stresses me out the most? Being worried that everyone else is so far ahead of me. And I think most everyone else feels that way, too. That feeling is not what God wants. He wants you to confidently make decisions that bring you joy.
Imagine for a moment that you're at a beach with a sign that says "Danger: do not swim. Shark-infested waters." You have choices to make, and a specific directive to NOT swim.
Nobody is around. The beach is beautiful, warm, with a gentle breeze. What are your choices, what consequences coincide with those choices, and what would you choose to do? (Cntd)
@Empshok, is there a conclusion coming?
@I Are Lebo, well, I was kinda hoping you would answer. What would go through your mind as potential options in this scenario? Don't hesitate to think outside the box.
@Empshok, I was going to seven hours ago, but you finished with a (contd) and I didn’t want to interrupt because I’m working on not doing that.
@I Are Lebo, that's very courteous of you. I just got sidetracked as usual.
@Empshok, the largest question I have is where you are getting your information on what God does or does not want and how you’ve determined that the information is accurate or valid.
@I Are Lebo, it's a combination of the doctrine of my church, experiences in life, and my relationship with Him. I'm starting to feel the effects of my sleep aid so please respond and I'll get back to you tomorrow.
@Empshok, when you’re able and willing, I’d like an answer that’s a little bit more specific. No rush, no pressure.
@I Are Lebo, give me a specific question and I will give you a specific answer. That being said, let me ask you a question: what would it take for you to a.) consider the existence of God to be possible, b.) consider the existence of God to be likely, and c.) believe God exists?
Think of it this way. Assume that you existed before birth as a spirit, organized and taught by a creator. But there exists critical aspects of development that require possession of a body capable of experiencing opposition. These bodies and minds are critically limited, and in order to develop we have to make choices without being able to consider all of the variables.
Above all, the primary purpose of this plan is the potential for perpetual happiness. How would you do it?
@Empshok, firstly, I did ask you a specific question. I asked by what method you have discerned the will of God. Citing church doctrine, life experience, and a ‘relationship’ with Him are all vague non answers. How did you determine that your beliefs are true? How do you differentiate yourself from the lunatic on the street corner ranting about nonsense?
As for your question for me, it would take a demonstration that a God CAN exist, which has not taken place, as well as a demonstration that the arguments or ideas being presented logically follow, which they do not. It’s like the common argument of “I look at the trees and the sky and I just think how can all this beauty exist without a creator”. This is an example of a fallacious argument. There is no connection demonstrated between trees and God and not being able to personally come up with an alternative and so coming to a decision anyway is called the Argument From Ignorance fallacy.
I’m not going to assume critical parts of such
a vital issue and it’s not rationally justified for you or anyone else to do so. You don’t get to just assert that spirits exist, this must be demonstrated. You don’t get to just assert there’s a creator, it has to be demonstrated.
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And this whole time you’ve been asserting the existence of and the motivation for, a being that has no demonstrable capabilities whatsoever. An Ultimate Being that can do anything but chooses to remain a secret and moves in “mysterious ways” is indistinguishable from random causality.
You also totally failed to answer my question. How did you conclude that your beliefs are valid?
@I Are Lebo, I had an entire segment written but then the app froze and I lost everything. So I got mad and decided to come back to it later. I don't even remember exactly what I said and that frustrates the poo outta me cuz I'm pretty sure it was pretty good. Anyway, God provides evidence to you and I in the form of signs. It should be noted that no matter what signs are presented, you still have to choose whether or not to act on them. The doubt and skepticism is a good thing. We came here to choose, and if you have all of the variables beforehand, are you really making a choice? Cntd
@I Are Lebo, signs often exist in patterns, either as a distinctive, unexplained variation or the observance of a pattern previously undetected. You have to choose to seek them, or you won't see them. And it's not because they aren't there, it's because our limited mortal minds have to focus on a few things at a time. Have you seen the video of a bunch of people throwing balls around, with the instruction to count them, and then the question at the end: did you see the guy in the gorilla costume?
Signs are often individual, giving an opportunity for communication between God and us. It's not usually a big revelation by angelic visitation. The goal is to build up a solid foundation and build on it, brick by brick.
It should be noted that I do not believe we are at a point where we can rely on deductive reasoning for anything. It is absolute, and there is nothing that you claim that I cannot present doubt in. Cntd
@Empshok, if you have to start wth the assumption that God is real and that He is sending you signs and that those signs prove his existence, then your logic is entirely circular. You are still missing my point. How have you determined that any of that is true and not just your imagination or wishful thinking?
How did you determine that your God is the real one and that all of the other religion’s Gods aren’t?
Your foundation, as far as I can tell, could not be less solid.
@I Are Lebo, inductive reasoning, or the presentation of a sound, rather than a valid argument, is all that we can really do until all has been made irrefutably clear. As such, the question "How do you know?" will always end with a point where we have to say, "I don't." It doesn't matter what, ultimately all you claim to know must start with a choice to believe or accept. The only thing I could not doubt was that something exists in some way...and that I may only exist in the mind of that thing.
@Empshok, except your arguments have not been sound. At all.
@I Are Lebo, it's only circular if you rely on deduction. To rely on pure deduction is flawed. Signs serve to strengthen an inductive argument, which I claim to be the best we can do with our limited minds. Cntd
@I Are Lebo, you may think your question about how I came to know what I know to be specific, but that question would take volumes to answer once I figured out the words to present it with. And as far as why I believe in the doctrine of God in my faith over others, it's a careful evaluation of all the different concepts presented by the different religious sects. I won't lie and say that I'm without bias, but from my personal relationship with God, I know that God was once like us. He wants us to be like Him, and He wants us to be happy. That rules out any religion that believes contrary to that. Continued...later. I gotta eat and do boring grown-up stuff.
@I Are Lebo, but first I want to encourage the continuity of this discussion. I think it's good for both of us. 😀
@Empshok, I’ll be honest, I’m getting fairly close to throwing in the towel because I completely disagree. You continue to dodge any questions I’m asking and you are making some extremely dishonest arguments. You use words like “I know” while not demonstrating at all how you even could know it. You’re either conflating belief and knowledge, or you’re obfuscating the point.
Is it real or not? If it is not real, then I have no use for it, because my primary concern is whether or not there’s a rationally sound justification for accepting the proposition of God’s existence. If it is real, then I want a demonstration that it is real, which can take the form of either actual evidence, or an epistemologically sound argument. So far, you have provided neither.
What do you mean by your “personal relationship with God”?
What concepts from your own faith have you carefully examined and found to be true or believable?
If you don’t know, why do you keep claiming you do?
How did you rule out
the possibility that you have been deluded, either by external indoctrination or internal fallacious thinking?
We all make mistakes and are fallible. How did you determine you aren’t mistaken about God?
It strikes me as the absolute height of arrogance to assert that not only do you KNOW that God is real, but that you are privy to the thought processes of this Ultimate Being. Especially when the conclusions you reach about what God does and doesn’t want just so happens to line up so nicely with what YOU do or don’t want.
Perhaps a better way of asking the question is simply why do you believe what you believe is true?
@I Are Lebo, it's been awhile since I've explained my beliefs. I'm very, very rusty. So for that, I apologize. I have not been dishonest with you. I'm probably tripping over my words. I think we need to start by finding something we both understand and agree on. I think that's how we're going to be able to make some progress here. If you'll be patient with me, I'll do the same. I think at this point, it would behoove me at least to type on a keyboard rather than a touchscreen. Hopefully I don't regret this, but...you can email me at my username on gmail. All lowercase.
It's important to me that I do my best to respond to your query about God, and if I give up, I'll regret it later. So please feel free to look me up.
Beyond that, I only suggest that you consider the causal risks of following the doctrine of the LDS church. Not the traditions or the culture, but the actual doctrine. Would you be subject to brainwashing? Let me know your thoughts.
@Empshok, for the record, I’m not accusing you of lying when I say your arguing in a dishonest way. I’ve listened to a lot of religious people attempt to defend their faith, and a lot of it involves learned tactics. It’s self deception, not manipulation of others.
I hope I don’t come across as insulting, but the Church of Latter Day Saints is a cult. Plain and simple. The doctrine is wholly immoral, and the followers of it are submitting themselves to a doctrine that is extremely harmful. I would refer you to a YouTube by the name of Mr Athiest (real name Jimmy Snow). He is a lifelong (and still current) member of the LDS church, and speaks about a variety of issues regarding the harms of the faith.
The doctrine of Joseph Smith, a convicted con man, is one that leads to well meaning people advocating for and passing laws specifically designed to oppress people. Gays, women, and non Mormons have all suffered greatly because of that doctrine.
Having said that, I appreciate your
willingness to at least broach the topic with me. That’s a huge step in the right direction.
I would love it if we could come to common ground. I’m not sure if we will, but I will try my best to keep an open mind.
For instance, I am not arguing against the usefulness of religion. The sense of community and belonging is something very useful. But as you said yourself, the foundation needs to be strong. The bible makes for the weakest of foundations because it can literally be interpreted to mean whatever you want.
That’s why during the American civil war, both sides were able to argue that the bible supported their stance on slavery. That’s obviously false, because the two sides views on slavery were mutually exclusive.
There were likely fewer people total on earth during the time Noah was around than Stalin killed.
What about Mao
That's cause Noah is fiction
One problem with that. Lack of evidence.
@The Pun Shielder, What lack of evidence? And for which dictator?
@LaDarkProphet, for Noah. Besides, if we treat the Bible as absolute fact (which I don’t) God would be the genocidal maniac, as he was responsible for killing everyone. Noah was the person who made the tool for salvation, and everyone who died didn’t take said path.
@The Pun Shielder, yea, you can't exactly fit an entire species on one boat, especially if you're trying to save every species. That's where the whole "2 of each" came from. We don't have room to save everyone, so let's bring a guy and girl from each and start from scratch
@theshadosnipe, yeah, that’s nonsense. One breeding pair isn’t enough to populate anything, something even the Bronze Age goat herders who wrote it should have known. One breeding pair would necessitate incestual pair bonding after the first generation, which would lead to fatal birth defects by the fifth or sixth generation, as well as debilitating mutations by the third or fourth. 2 humans are about a thousand humans short of a sustainable population, and while the animals vary on that regard, not one of them could repopulate from a single pairing.
@I Are Lebo, jeeze man, take a chill pill. Obviously you're right scientifically. I'm not religious in the least and dont believe in any of that, but I was just pointing out that that was their reason for the whole 2 of each... This is funny pics, not "bust a nut over a random comment" pics
@theshadosnipe, I’m totally calm, but it’s interesting to me that you seem unable to differentiate between someone criticizing you for what you had to say and someone losing their temper with you for emotional reasons.
You made a really bad argument, and I pointed it out. If you’d like to defend your argument, I’d welcome the debate, but if not, I’d said my piece and was done.
Although I will add that the whole “we don’t have room to save everyone” thing gets a lot creepier when you remember that the reason why there wasn’t enough room (in the story) was because God wanted to commit genocide and would not be swayed.
It doesn’t particularly matter to me whether the person defending the Bible is doing so because they actually believe or not. It’s poisonous.
@I Are Lebo, I've read enough of your comments both in this thread and in the past to know how passive aggressive you are. If you can't see that, I'm sorry. Either way, it takes 2 to argue so I'm out. Have a good night
@theshadosnipe, I am not passive aggressive. Sometimes I’m an asshole, sure. I also do not deny I enjoy to argue, but if that’s not what you’re interested in, that’s totally fine.
However, if you want to throw a jab out and then act like you’re above debates and just walk away, or if you want to share a stance and then take any criticism of that stance as a personal attack, then I’m going to call that behaviour out for what it is. Cowardly.
If you don’t want to argue, don’t argue. But don’t make an argument and then act like a counter argument from someone else is some kind of passive aggressive insult aimed at you. That’s shameful.
Yeah sure, blame Noah, and not the guy that, you know, flooded the entire world, killing countless of innocent puppies and kittens along with them.
Any man given enough power will kill everyone