There is no health in us.

[floo]

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.

No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard.

Sadly that is true. But to give Alan his due he doesn't lose it every time he is challenged, unlike another 'Christian' whose lack of intellectual acuity is obvious every time they post. They seem totally unaware how vile they can be, even though they accuse of others of being so!

[BashfulAnthony]

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.

No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard.

Sadly that is true. But to give Alan his due he doesn't lose it every time he is challenged, unlike another 'Christian' whose lack of intellectual acuity is obvious every time they post. They seem totally unaware how vile they can be, even though they accuse of others of being so!

Have the courage to say who you mean, or are you as cowardly in being honest and straightforward as you are silly in your religious views?

[Shaker]

But to give Alan his due he doesn't lose it every time he is challenged

No - most of the time he completely ignores any such challenges.

[BashfulAnthony]

But to give Alan his due he doesn't lose it every time he is challenged

No - most of the time he completely ignores any such challenges.

He certainly ignores your frequent and unpleasant personal attacks  -  he has better control and decent manners than you could dream of.

[Shaker]

What personal attacks are these?

[BashfulAnthony]

What personal attacks are these?

For crying out loud, man!!  We went over this a day or two ago - is your memory finally going?  I refer to your frequent derogatory references to his intelligence, or lack of it;  which, apart from the viciousness of it, is a joke, because your are no Einstein, are you!

[Shaker]

I don't recall making any references to his intelligence, derogatory or otherwise. Like a goodly number of others I certainly do point out, regularly, where he employs fallacious thinking or merely offers bald assertion instead of argument. Doubtless to you this constitutes an 'attack.'

As for Einstein, your memory can't be up to much if you've already forgotten that you wheeled out this tripe last night and I responded to it then.

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't recall making any references to his intelligence, derogatory or otherwise. Like a goodly number of others I certainly do point out, regularly, where he employs fallacious thinking or merely offers bald assertion instead of argument. Doubtless to you this constitutes an 'attack.'

As for Einstein, your memory can't be up to much if you've already forgotten that you wheeled out this tripe last night and I responded to it then.

You know full-well that you cast aspersions on AB's intelligence, as you do with others.  I though you did possess some modicum of ethical posting;  but it appears I was wrong: you not only make these jibes, but you haven't the moral fortitude to admit it when challenged.

[Shaker]

Since you asserted it, it's up to you to prove it.

[BashfulAnthony]

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.

No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard.

The  most recent example is on this thread a few posts back: M 226:  "No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard."

So, you are lying.

There are plenty of examples, if you care to peruse your own posts, instead of trying to squirm out of it by putting the onus on others to check your turgid offerings.

   

[floo]

AB might lack intellectual acuity, but he is genius level compared with another poster who frequently questions the intelligence of us wicked heathen!

[BashfulAnthony]

AB might lack intellectual acuity, but he is genius level compared with another poster who frequently questions the intelligence of us wicked heathen!

imo, you should say who you mean, imo.  Otherwise, imo, you could be just making it up, imo.

[Shaker]

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.

No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard.

The  most recent example is on this thread a few posts back: M 226:  "No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard."

So, you are lying.

Er, that's me saying that nobody else needs to insult Alan's intelligence when he insults his own (and that of others, come to that).

[Alien]

That's a possibility. Why do you think I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is sufficient.

Because you are credulous, with poor critical thinking skills, led by an emotional desire to believe what you wish to be the case.

Excellent.

[Jack Knave]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

That's pure speculation, a what if. My post was in reference to human nature (making shit up etc.) and the fact that it was men who wrote of what they claimed God did or judged on. Nowhere do we have God communicating with us, today, directly. It is all from third parties, and that being, men doing what men do, writing and creating narratives.

Sadly, we do have accounts of people claiming things like the end of the world by a given date and surprise, surprise we're still here!!! I'll believe it when I see it.

You're 2000 years too late, mate. 2000 years ago God did communicate directly. You could even have sat down and have a cuppa with him if you were in Israel.

Pure speculation, mate. You don't know this and have no proof that it was so.

There is good evidence which, I would suggest, would lead anyone openly and honestly looking at it to come to the conclusion that God did become man 2000 years ago. I hope you get there at some point.

Evidence isn't fact!!!

And there is no historical document good enough for someone to sanely guide their whole life style on it as gospel truth.

The facts are that people wrote this stuff. The speculation is why they did it? From our point in history we can never truly know why this was and so the speculation goes categorical unanswered.

You're whole Christian faith is based on guesswork all bolstered up by your prejudices to want to believe.

[Jack Knave]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

"When we've had floods around here people survive."

Oh I see, Noah would have gone down to the local supermarket to get his provisions?

[floo]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

Oh I see, Noah would have gone down to the local supermarket to get his provisions?

Of course!

[Jack Knave]

Why have so many people openly and honestly looked at the "evidence" and concluded (in the vernacular) that it's a crock?

Or are you going to claim that they simply didn't look openly and honestly?

That's a possibility. Why do you think I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is sufficient. Don't be shy in putting your view across.

Weren't you a Christian as a child in Wales? I.e. an ingrained bias that acted as a presumption before you even started in Cambridge.

Did the Aberfan disaster shake your faith at the time? Iirc you said your parents couldn't square this with a loving God? Perhaps an unconscious desire to justify going back to the pre-Aberfan days drives you to see truths that aren't really there to serve those desires and emotional needs?

[Leonard James]

Weren't you a Christian as a child in Wales? I.e. an ingrained bias that acted as a presumption before you even started in Cambridge.

Did the Aberfan disaster shake your faith at the time? Iirc you said your parents couldn't square this with a loving God? Perhaps an unconscious desire to justify going back to the pre-Aberfan days drives you to see truths that aren't really there to serve those desires and emotional needs?

Makes sense.

[Alien]

...
Evidence isn't fact!!!

Agreed, but it is possible to have good enough evidence about things to come to a decision on something, e.g. whether to get on a plane to go on holiday.

And there is no historical document good enough for someone to sanely guide their whole life style on it as gospel truth.

That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

The facts are that people wrote this stuff. The speculation is why they did it? From our point in history we can never truly know why this was and so the speculation goes categorical unanswered.

That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

You're whole Christian faith is based on guesswork all bolstered up by your prejudices to want to believe.

That's your assertion. I disagree with you. Why should I think it is my prejudices and not yours?

[Alien]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

May I point out to you that I do not believe that the bible speaks of a flood which covered the entire planet, so if I am correct, your point above may not be relevant.

[Alien]

Why have so many people openly and honestly looked at the "evidence" and concluded (in the vernacular) that it's a crock?

Or are you going to claim that they simply didn't look openly and honestly?

That's a possibility. Why do you think I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is sufficient. Don't be shy in putting your view across.

Weren't you a Christian as a child in Wales?

Wash your mouth out! I'm from Norfolk!

I.e. an ingrained bias that acted as a presumption before you even started in Cambridge.

Nope. I went to Sunday School and church till I was about 9. I did get confirmed at about 14, but the only thing I can remember of that, apart from going to communion in the school chapel just the once after than, was that the vicar chappie asked us at the end if we had any outstanding questions and I told him I didn't get this Adam and Eve thing. He never replied.

Did the Aberfan disaster shake your faith at the time?

I can't remember anything of what I thought at that time.

Iirc you said your parents couldn't square this with a loving God? Perhaps an unconscious desire to justify going back to the pre-Aberfan days drives you to see truths that aren't really there to serve those desires and emotional needs?

<chuckle/>Which Christmas cracker did you get that one from?

[Alien]

Weren't you a Christian as a child in Wales? I.e. an ingrained bias that acted as a presumption before you even started in Cambridge.

Did the Aberfan disaster shake your faith at the time? Iirc you said your parents couldn't square this with a loving God? Perhaps an unconscious desire to justify going back to the pre-Aberfan days drives you to see truths that aren't really there to serve those desires and emotional needs?

Makes sense.

Are you serious?

I'm going to have to keep this post. I keep some of the "nutty as a fruit cake" ones.

[Jack Knave]

...
Evidence isn't fact!!!

1) Agreed, but it is possible to have good enough evidence about things to come to a decision on something, e.g. whether to get on a plane to go on holiday.

And there is no historical document good enough for someone to sanely guide their whole life style on it as gospel truth.

2) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

The facts are that people wrote this stuff. The speculation is why they did it? From our point in history we can never truly know why this was and so the speculation goes categorical unanswered.

3) That's your assertion. I disagree with you.

You're whole Christian faith is based on guesswork all bolstered up by your prejudices to want to believe.

4) That's your assertion. I disagree with you. Why should I think it is my prejudices and not yours?

1) Your example is not comparable, and you are playing your games again by doing this. You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned. Your evidence can't be investigated personally, it has solidified in history and is inaccessible. 

2) That is not an assertion it is fact. Your tactics here are similar to those I hear politicians use and is disingenuous. I thought Christians were suppose to not be duplicitous...people should guide their lives based on personal experience of their lives not some rule book from the past.

3) Again, this is not an assertion but logical reasoning, and bloody obvious!!!

4) It is at least guesswork i.e. speculation, for what else do you have? You can't examine the events personally, unless you have a time machine, and therefore, you can never know what actually happened. And as there is more than one explanation that can account for these manuscripts that puts doubts throughout the documentation. Which means your faith rests on speculation and doubt.

[Jack Knave]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

May I point out to you that I do not believe that the bible speaks of a flood which covered the entire planet, so if I am correct, your point above may not be relevant.

Oh, I am surprised. I thought the purpose of the flood was to remove the whole of mankind (sinners) except Noah and his family?

In fact what you say doesn't square with what Gen 6 says.