C'mon dyre, leave the poor guy alone. Just as he's coming to terms with his delusions, you go and fill his brain with batshit crazy concepts like science and reality! You're so mean.

(September 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes humans were vegetarians before the flood, after the flood there was little vegetation and what was there the animals needed. Animals were plentiful and God gave man permission to eat meat to sustain both the vegetation and man.
GC

So let me get this straight, when the floods receded there were plenty of animals? Then why did Noah need to take a load on the ark? If you mean he ate the animals that were on the ark then which animals didn't make it to modern times through being made extinct through being eaten?

The christian god seems to have this uncanny fascination where he would rather watch you masturbate than feed hungry children in the world.

Intriguing.

(September 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Godschild Wrote: exactly why would the Creator of the universe be required to give all details, because you think the omniscient and omnipotent God should do as you want, that's simply a crazy notion. They would have the whole of the land of Canaan to posses as long as they obeyed Him.

First part: Perhaps to show that he isn't a woman-hating misogynistic psychopath.
Second part: "Obey" what? That's never a part of the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional covenant.

(September 24, 2015 at 2:05 am)Ronkonkoma Wrote: Anyway. People who believe need little explanation and people who don't believe will never be content with all the explanation in the world.

Translation: People who believe already do so before anything is explained or understood. Those who don't believe are not impressed with any of the rationalizations given for unexplained belief.

(September 24, 2015 at 5:52 am)Aractus Wrote:

(September 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Godschild Wrote: exactly why would the Creator of the universe be required to give all details, because you think the omniscient and omnipotent God should do as you want, that's simply a crazy notion. They would have the whole of the land of Canaan to posses as long as they obeyed Him.

First part: Perhaps to show that he isn't a woman-hating misogynistic psychopath.
Second part: "Obey" what? That's never a part of the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional covenant.

 First part: That's no part of who God is, you just want to interpret things that way to be satisfying your delusion.
 Second part: During the Abraham's time God was giving a prophecy of the Israelites disobedience during Moses time. I thought I made that fairly clear, guess not, sorry.

GC

"Interpreting"? The Bible makes it pretty fucking plain women are seen as the inferior sex. You don't have to "interpret" anything, it's there written plainly for you to see.

This applies to a lot of things in the Bible and the Quran, so I'm bit tired of this "interpretation" argument. The most you can do to "interpret" these texts it leave out the bits you don't like. You can't re-word them, twist them, or pretend they have symbolic meaning that means advocating rape of virgin daughters actually means something else. For the most part, these texts are written plainly and there's no "interpretation" needed, it says exactly what it says.

When the Bible says this;

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34

It is quite plainly saying "women must be in submission". You can't "interpret" (read: spin) that to mean something completely different when it is very clear about what it means. That's far from the most misogynistic quote from the Bible btw.

(September 24, 2015 at 3:03 am)StuW Wrote:

(September 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes humans were vegetarians before the flood, after the flood there was little vegetation and what was there the animals needed. Animals were plentiful and God gave man permission to eat meat to sustain both the vegetation and man.
GC

So let me get this straight, when the floods receded there were plenty of animals?  Then why did Noah need to take a load on the ark?  If you mean he ate the animals that were on the ark then  which animals didn't make it to modern times through being made extinct through being eaten?

 Surely you can't mean you do not understand what I was saying, let's go at it again. God gave man the permission to eat meat of some animals that were on the Ark. Man also eat vegetation, there were probably many nuts laying around, nuts will last for years. As far as eight people eating up the animals they were allowed to eat, why do you think God told them there would be seven pairs of those animals. Many animals reproduce at quite a good rate, and fish would have been abundant, not just for man but also for the animals who would need meat to eat along with vegetation. Many animals that eat meat also eat vegetation, seaweeds would have be in great supply, seaweed is a great source of food. Milk from sheep and goats would have supplied a great source of nutrition. There would have been fourteen supplying milk, eggs from birds like chickens would have supplied more eggs than they could eat and still have plenty of chicks, in a years time there would have been hundreds of chickens alone to eat and lay eggs which would have supplied most of there food needs until other animals had a chance to grow their populations. Chickens start laying eggs within six months of hatching. I have three chicken I got as chicks back in the spring, they are now laying more eggs than I and my pup can eat and these are not even a huge eggs producing breed. I have three others that very good producers and there are days those three will lay as many as nine eggs a day, what do you think fourteen would produce and in six months an abundance of chicks will have grown up and started laying. There would have been plenty for the people and some of the animals. Need I continue, sheep, goats and chickens would have supplied the eight with plenty until a good recovery was under way, plus the vegetation they would have, seems to me they would have eaten quite well.

GC

(September 24, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: "Interpreting"? The Bible makes it pretty fucking plain women are seen as the inferior sex. You don't have to "interpret" anything, it's there written plainly for you to see.

This applies to a lot of things in the Bible and the Quran, so I'm bit tired of this "interpretation" argument. The most you can do to "interpret" these texts it leave out the bits you don't like. You can't re-word them, twist them, or pretend they have symbolic meaning that means advocating rape of virgin daughters actually means something else. For the most part, these texts are written plainly and there's no "interpretation" needed, it says exactly what it says.

When the Bible says this;

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34

It is quite plainly saying "women must be in submission". You can't "interpret" (read: spin) that to mean something completely different when it is very clear about what it means. That's far from the most misogynistic quote from the Bible btw.

Damn, who is the hotty in your avatar?

(September 24, 2015 at 9:47 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(September 24, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: "Interpreting"? The Bible makes it pretty fucking plain women are seen as the inferior sex. You don't have to "interpret" anything, it's there written plainly for you to see.

This applies to a lot of things in the Bible and the Quran, so I'm bit tired of this "interpretation" argument. The most you can do to "interpret" these texts it leave out the bits you don't like. You can't re-word them, twist them, or pretend they have symbolic meaning that means advocating rape of virgin daughters actually means something else. For the most part, these texts are written plainly and there's no "interpretation" needed, it says exactly what it says.

When the Bible says this;

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34

It is quite plainly saying "women must be in submission". You can't "interpret" (read: spin) that to mean something completely different when it is very clear about what it means. That's far from the most misogynistic quote from the Bible btw.

Damn, who is the hotty in your avatar?

Yo mama.