(October 11, 2015 at 9:20 am)Randys brother Wrote:(October 11, 2015 at 9:17 am)Stimbo Wrote: Oh, and by the way:
So that means if you think am winning in the,argument then you will try to destroy my evidence right?
(October 11, 2015 at 9:15 am)Stimbo Wrote: And how do you know it's the "word of God"?
Aarchaeology proving it's true.
*sigh* The archaeology is against almost every point the Bible makes. It is fairly clear that, for instance, Jericho was never a walled fortress conquered by anyone anywhere near the time when Joshua would have had to exist, and that there was no mass migration of Hebrews from Egypt at that time, and that Egypt controlled the place they went to in the story, at the time (indeed, was fighting a border war with the Hittite empire just north of Canaan, at the time). This information was clearly not available to the priests who were making up a collective history of Israel/Judea for the people returning from the Exile in Babylon, so they could establish an "historical" claim to control of the people in that region and a collective identity that could help them stick together. They cobbled together a semi-coherent book from the fragments of scripture of the various peoples of the area, excised the polytheistic roots of the Hebrews (leaving a few traces, though most of the evidence of it comes from archaeology), and formed what we now think of as the Old Testament.
The flood is not only not supported, it is against every known law of physics, a fact which the writers were obviously unaware as they plagiarized the story from Sumerian/Chaldean legends and adapted it to the Hebrew history-tale they were weaving.
The Creation myth is not only blatantly silly (night and day were created before the sun... oops!) and defiant of everything we know about science from actually investigating the question systematically, it indicates a genetic bottleneck that would show up in modern DNA testing, due to all the incest, a factor which simply does not show up. How can it not be obvious to you that its writers simply did not know about genetics, physics, chemistry (claiming we are made from molded clay, which is made of Aluminum-Silicate and other similar inorganic molecule crystals, not the stuff humans are made of), and biology?
Archaeology shows that there was no unified and powerful Hebrew Empire, as claimed in the stories of David and Solomon, and that the descriptions given of their powerful kingdom were in reality small outposts and mediocre villages during the 10th century BCE. All the evidence of that era is 9th century or later. Except for a small, hard core of Evangelical Literalists who struggle to keep believing in the tales as-written, no serious scholar thinks that the Bible is valid archaeology.
Continue in your delusion if you want, but we actually read from multiple sources and grasp the actual historical record, which does not support the claims you are making here. No matter how many times you repeat your drivel it will become no more true than it was last time. Go read some books not written by people who already agree with you, for fork's sake!
That is why we call you arrogant. You already claim to have all the answers, from the Napkin you worship, and you openly admit that nothing could ever make you change your mind. How can you expect us to take you seriously after making a statement like that?
You're saying: "My mind is totally closed. I refuse to learn anything I don't already agree with. You should listen to me!"
GTFOH with that nonsense.

A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.