Quote:Ok, I'm gonna start trimming these down significantly because much of what you say is irrelevant, most of your questions are contrary and infantile (and could be answered with 10 seconds of googling), and these are getting too damn long to be worth my time.
1) you assume I ask because I am ignorant of your arguments 2) Google is not all knowing.
Quote:Those wouldn't have to be the only two choices. An all-powerful, all-perfect being could create beings that legitimately have a choice of whether or not to love him and yet will still choose to love him every time. All-powerful means all-powerful, and there is nothing inherently illogical or contradictory about what I'm saying. A perfect, omnipotent being could create beings with the capacity to choose, give those beings a legitimate choice, and still wind up with beings that choose him every time.
How wouldn't that be the the choice if in the end the only place you could end up is "loving" God?
Quote:The flood story is impossible because it would have killed all the land plants and all sea life, the carnivores would have made a species go extinct every time they ate something, the herbivores wouldn't have had anything to eat after getting off the boat, the animals and humans would have lacked the genetic diversity necessary to speciate, the boat would have filled with poop, the animals on the lower decks would have suffocated, the animals would have started killing and eating each other a matter of days into the flood, there isn't enough water on earth's surface or in the atmosphere to cover the entire surface...need I go on?
1) the Bible is not a scientific book and God doesn't have to tell you how it happened
Marine life
"Many aquatic creatures were killed in the Flood because of the turbidity of the water and changes in salinities and temperatures. Indeed, the geologic record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with shallow-water marine invertebrates alone accounting for an estimated 95 percent by number of the fossil record.
if the hybridization within many fish kinds today suggests that the ability to tolerate and adjust to large changes in water salinity and turbidity was probably present in most fish at the time of and during the global Flood, then they definitely had the ability to cope with the wide fluctuations and ranges of temperatures and turbidities of the Flood waters. Indeed, there are more species of fish today than any other group of vertebrates, which possibly attests to their ability to hybridize and diversify."
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/h...sis-flood/
Plant life
"First, it is possible that the water had salinity similar to that of freshwater before the Flood. Second, it is possible there was a lower salt concentration, similar to brackish water (0.5-30 ppt), during most of the Flood, and that the current salinity is a result of floodwater runoff from the continents, volcanism, and current deposition from rain and rivers. It is not likely the salinity was roughly the same during the inundation stages of the Flood as it is now. But even if it was, it would still not have been a problem for plants to survive. The main point is that skeptics cannot arbitrarily assume the floodwater salinity, since they were not there to measure it.
Another assumption skeptics make is that the species we have today are the same as at the time of the Flood. Though some species were probably around then, like the Wollemi Pine, it is safe to assume that most species around today are not exactly the same as what was around before the Flood 4,400 years ago. Why is this significant? One big reason is that plants today have undergone 4,400 years of speciation, mutations, and genetic deterioration. This must mean some of the genetic information has been lost. the fact is that those same species could have been more genetically and physically robust, and thus better able to withstand extreme conditions than modern plants, including up to nine months immersed in or floating on open floodwaters!
there are tree and plant species that actually thrive in flood-like conditions or even saltwater. For example, mangroves live primarily along tropical coastlines. Not to mention the flowering plants and trees that flourish in swamplands. Some trees that live in swamplands include (but are not limited to) the white cedar, eastern hemlock, loblolly pine, black spruce, red maple, elm, pin oak, and birch. Knowing that some trees withstand saturating water conditions makes it difficult to say “plants could not have survived the Flood” because those trees are literally thriving in such conditions."
read more at https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/h...the-flood/
The Animals on the ark
"most animals that eat only live prey in nature necessarily require moving prey in captivity. (For the few that do, it would not have been difficult to provide a rudimentary live-animal feeder.)
Even the most “fussy” animal kinds today contain individual representatives that can depart from the foods their kind normally eats in nature. For example, although most koalas eat nothing but fresh eucalyptus leaves, there are individual koalas that will subsist on dried eucalyptus leaves. Likewise, some individual pandas will accept dried bamboo stalks. "
Breathing
"The Bible is not specific as to the kind and size of window on the ark. It is reasonable to believe that one relatively small window would have adequately ventilated the ark. Of course, if there were a window running along the top center section, which the biblical description allows, all occupants would be even more comfortable. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further."
Did they eat each other after the got off
"The post-Flood world must have had plenty of rotting corpses of various animals that were not buried in the Flood sediments. Experience has shown that most carnivores prefer to eat carrion than to kill live animals for food. Also, the Flood must have left behind many residual pools of water and marine life. As these waters retreated or dried up, fish and other marine animals were stranded in lakes, ponds, and streams on land. This could also have served as food for the ark-released carnivores. In fact, experience shows that many normally non–fish-eating carnivores, such as lions, will eat fish if it is available, and do so in preference to hunting their usual prey. "
the Waste
"One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in rustic henhouses. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each.
The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Second, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of the window of the ark. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the ark would have remotely approached hazardous levels.
Alternatively, sloped floors in animal enclosures would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters and then into collection pits, allowing gravity to do most of the work. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower.
The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.
While the voyage of the ark may not have been comfortable or easy, it was certainly doable, even under such unprecedented circumstances. "
You can read more at https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/h...-for-them/
not enough water
Genesis 7:11–12In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights
"The Bible tells us that water came from two sources: below the earth and above the earth. Evidently, the source for water below the ground was in great subterranean pools, or “fountains” of fresh water, which were broken open by volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity"
read more at https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/g...ark-flood/
Quote:Your apologist propaganda is not impressive to me. Mainstream scholarship posits that the Jewish enslavement and Exodus did not happen, and they have sound archaeological reasons for believing this. Find me a non-Christian, non-Jewish source that says otherwise.
If that is the case then you can't use sources that have the same ideologies that you have. If you are going to find me sources against the slavery of the Jews then they need to have my ideology or I can say the same thing you just claimed. You have a double standard against this information and that will not excuse you.
Quote:Could you learn to use google?
The story of Gilgamesh predates the biblical creation and flood stories and shares elements of both.
The Zoroastrian god, Avesta, is said to have created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and the names of the people he created were Adama and Eva.
According to scholars, Zoroastrians were probably also the first to believe in Angels, Satan, demons, and the ongoing battle between good and evil.
The Book of the Dead and Hamurabi's Code both share elements with the Ten Commandments, which they predate. Hamurabi's Code is also one of the oldest iterations of the Golden Rule.
Those are just a few examples.
Again you assume I don't know what you are talking about I just want you to specifically name them.
Couldn't it be possible that they share similarities because there was actually a Biblical flood and their ancestors passed down similar stories to their children.
Zoroastrianism
Similarities don't prove that the bible borrowed from this religion. There are far more dissimilar and contradictory view between Zoroastrianism and Christianity than similarities.
The god in Zoroatrianism is not the same as the God in the Bible. God is all powerful and omnipotent where as the God in Zoroastrianism is not all powerful. In Zoro. you have to work to be made right with the God. In Christianity there is nothing you can do but accept the gift of salvation, through the death and resurrection of Christ, to be made right with God. In Christianity Satan is not the opposite of God but a created being of God that is and will continue to be defeated by God. The god of Zoro. is of equal strength of his nemesis Angra Mainyu.
It is not OK to be dealing with occult practices as a Christian unlike Zoro
You know you can say that Christianity borrows from Judaism because we believe that the God that set up Judaism is God. We look at the books written by the Jews and for the Jews and see them as the holy words of God. Not only that we happily agree that we get our bases for our religion from their religion. You don't see that with Judaism or Christianity when it come to Zoroastrianism. All you have done is found some similarities in a religion and then made a wild leap that Christianity and Judaism has borrowed from this religion.
Again similarities do not mean that the 10 commandments were written from it. There are other codes just like this one written before these laws were written. Cuneiform laws written 2350B.B the Code of Urukagina 2380 B.C. the Code of Ur-Nammu 2050 B.C. ect. All this shows it that people need laws because we are sinful. The Mosaic law goes further and talks about sin and your responsibility to God and not just man.
In his book Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, Fred Wight writes, “The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi’s Code. . . . The great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ [Leviticus 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code.”
The book of the dead is for those who are dead to come before the gods and say what they haven't done. The commandments are for the living because it was to demonstrate the nature of God and show that we are not able to match up with God (among other things). There are also more than 10 commandments in the bible.
Quote:Sure...if your neighbor's slave runs away and winds up on your property, don't return him...keep him for yourself. How convenient.
you are twisting the text for your own convenience
Quote:The fact that you attempt to make any defense of this passage at all is kind of disgusting, honestly. It makes regulations for (read: condones) selling one's daughter into sexual slavery, and getting rid of her or "giving her back" if she's not pleasing to her husband/master. It treats women like chattel and is a prime example of why biblical morality is outdated and primitive.
I don't need to defend God's word He will do that Himself. There is nothing that I could say that would make you happy anyway because you are set on not believing God even though you have not bases for judging these people morals system since as you say morals are subjective. Also since in your world view we are just evolved form single cell organism what is the big deal anyway? It only becomes an issue when people have intrinsic worth which you have flatly denied. If you would also see in Matt 19:7-9 there are many laws in the old testament due to the hardness of mans heart God puts up with. This is one of those kinds of laws.
Quote:They depend on matter to exist because they depend on brains, you contrary little shit.
To get back to the idea that we were discussing. If God created the universe why do you think you would find Him being a part of it or exactly like the thing he made. I studied art and I am outside of my work and since I would mostly in 2D You would not find me in it. I can manipulate it but to assume that I could only exist inside of my art and be just as my art is would be absurd. So why is it impossible to apply the same logic to God.
Finally You should repent and give you life over to God. You are going up against the God of all creation and you are under the assumption that your lies will make that reality change. God has made a way for you to come into a loving and satisfying relationship with Him because He loves you. He died for you and everyone else reading this. He truly wants you to know this. He has paid a high price for you to be made right with Him. Of course it is your choice. He will not force you to believe but He will remove every obstacle in order to allow you to come into a right relationship with Him. In reality he doesn't want to send you to Hell, that is why Jesus came, but in order to correct everything and make it right He must remove all evil. If you choose to remain in your sin then He will remove you as well.
