10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, we've heard your fantasy before.  Playing on a les paul or some shit.  

Too bad every decent guitarist is going to hell, I guess. Seems almost sinful, an eternity of shitty musicians hammering out piss poor noise on nice gear for Dear Leader. Jimi goes to hell and you play covers.

[Astonished]

Yeah, we've heard your fantasy before.  Playing on a les paul or some shit.  

Too bad every decent guitarist is going to hell, I guess.  Seems almost sinful, an eternity of shitty musicians hammering out piss poor noise on nice gear for Dear Leader.  Jimi goes to hell and you play covers.  

So basically, he's saying god is hanging his unwashed, diseased cock out like a fishing line, and we have to genuinely want to suck him off to completion in order to get his gooey goodness. Yeah...not gonna want to do that, no matter the prize. Because I'm pretty sure the prize means deepthroating that leprous fungus for eternity. I'll take the red-hot pitchforks in the ass, thanks.

There has to be some disconnect here that must be acknowledged. This relationship cannot be one-sided or god is a fuckass piece of shit. There cannot be a reason for god to withhold himself from anyone or god is a fuckass piece of shit. There cannot be a book that portrays god as a fuckass piece of shit and that still is expected by god to convince us that he's not a fuckass piece of shit. There is no way a god that is not a fuckass piece of shit would rely on fuckass pieces of shit like Gullible Cretin to be his voice and promoter. There is no way that a god that is not a fuckass piece of shit would even conceive of, for even a moment, anything resembling hell for any reason whatsoever, let alone as a punishment for the simple offense of his own fuckass piece of shit self withholding himself like a fuckass piece of shit so that his children he is supposed to love doubt or resent him as a result of his own fuckass piece of shit failures.

Pick...I don't know, at least one of those, and shove it up your ass, Gullible Cretin. You have no answer to them. Fuck you for lying if you even try because that's all you can ever do.

[Godscreated]

  There is no evidence that the universe was in a dense state, it is an opinion.  God said He created the universe from nothing, meaning He created the materials the universe is made up of. God made the first man's body from the dust of the ground, He made the first woman from Adam's rib and after that God gave humans the means to make human bodies through conception. Evolution has no part of creation.

GC

Why do you suppose cosmologists and physicists proposed and almost universally accepted that the universe was once in a hot dense state without any evidence?

Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.

GC

---

God said He created the universe from nothing, meaning He created the materials the universe is made up of. God made the first man's body from the dust of the ground, He made the first woman from Adam's rib and after that God gave humans the means to make human bodies through conception. Evolution has no part of creation.
GC

Contemporary creationism does not contradict the biblical narrative. At the same time, the biblical narrative does not depend on contemporary creationism and could just as easily accommodate some form of evolution, just not the wildly implausible neo-Darwin synthesis.

Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.

GC

[Inkfeather132]

And you're back to being dense again. The "scriptures" have as much evidence for their truth as god does. Your Bible is the place where god was invented, and so can't be used to "prove" his existence. And I would check that you were in line with the Bible if you would actually quote Bible verses instead of just expecting me to take your word for it. Grow up and get a clue, sitting here whining that "god told you so" isn't witnessing, it's just you childishly clinging to your unverified beliefs and then getting bitchy when we point out how stupid it is.

 First I'm not whining nor being bitchy, I'm the one who will be living with God for eternity, so I have no reason to be either in this conversation. It does appear that you have slid off coarse and gotten a bit upset. You've given me no reason to quote scripture and if I did knowing how you react .... well it would be no different than how you are reacting now. The scriptures are for those who want to know God, to the casual reader they want have much meaning, if you were to ever change your mind an seek after God you would find the scriptures read very differently to you. If I'm stupid and God is who I believe Him to be then what does that make you.

GC

Basically, you keep saying that you won't quote scripture to me nor give me evidence because you don't think I'll accept it. I've told you before, show me the evidence and I'll believe. The only reason I reject your claim of a god is because I've received no evidence of his existence from you or from him. I've already told him that I'll listen whenever he's ready to show himself to me, so now I offer you the same. Give me the evidence and I'll consider it. Continue dancing around the issue, and I'll just have to assume you don't actually have it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.

GC

"Change within a kind" is evolution by another name.  Adaptation to changing environmental conditions is natural selection.  Hybrid infertility is an issue of disparate genetics.  Looks like you accept modern synth after all, you just think that it started significantly later than all available evidence demonstrates, when god decided to play around in the dirt. Guess you've got some repenting to do, heretic. Do your fundy literalist friends know that you accept evilution?

[Mister Agenda]

Why do you suppose cosmologists and physicists proposed and almost universally accepted that the universe was once in a hot dense state without any evidence?

Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.

GC

So it's a vast scientific conspiracy by scientists, including many who believe in God?

Whew, I was so concerned that you were going to come up with an explanation that's completely unhinged.

[Astonished]

Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.

GC

So it's a vast scientific conspiracy by scientists, including many who believe in God?

Whew, I was so concerned that you were going to come up with an explanation that's completely unhinged.

I haven't heard that kind of batshit crazy rhetoric since...a video yesterday featuring Ken Ham. Pretty obvious he's either completely schizophrenic or just trolling.

[Harry Nevis]

And you're back to being dense again. The "scriptures" have as much evidence for their truth as god does. Your Bible is the place where god was invented, and so can't be used to "prove" his existence. And I would check that you were in line with the Bible if you would actually quote Bible verses instead of just expecting me to take your word for it. Grow up and get a clue, sitting here whining that "god told you so" isn't witnessing, it's just you childishly clinging to your unverified beliefs and then getting bitchy when we point out how stupid it is.

 First I'm not whining nor being bitchy, I'm the one who will be living with God for eternity, so I have no reason to be either in this conversation. It does appear that you have slid off coarse and gotten a bit upset. You've given me no reason to quote scripture and if I did knowing how you react .... well it would be no different than how you are reacting now. The scriptures are for those who want to know God, to the casual reader they want have much meaning, if you were to ever change your mind an seek after God you would find the scriptures read very differently to you. If I'm stupid and God is who I believe Him to be then what does that make you.

GC

Still stupid?

---

Why do you suppose cosmologists and physicists proposed and almost universally accepted that the universe was once in a hot dense state without any evidence?

Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.

GC

---

Contemporary creationism does not contradict the biblical narrative. At the same time, the biblical narrative does not depend on contemporary creationism and could just as easily accommodate some form of evolution, just not the wildly implausible neo-Darwin synthesis.

Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.

GC

At least you admit you're close minded.

[Astonished]

 First I'm not whining nor being bitchy, I'm the one who will be living with God for eternity, so I have no reason to be either in this conversation. It does appear that you have slid off coarse and gotten a bit upset. You've given me no reason to quote scripture and if I did knowing how you react .... well it would be no different than how you are reacting now. The scriptures are for those who want to know God, to the casual reader they want have much meaning, if you were to ever change your mind an seek after God you would find the scriptures read very differently to you. If I'm stupid and God is who I believe Him to be then what does that make you.

GC

Still stupid?

---

Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.

GC

---

Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.

GC

At least you admit you're close minded.

Yup. Everything anyone of us has said to him on here has been an utter waste of time.

[Godscreated]

 First I'm not whining nor being bitchy, I'm the one who will be living with God for eternity, so I have no reason to be either in this conversation. It does appear that you have slid off coarse and gotten a bit upset. You've given me no reason to quote scripture and if I did knowing how you react .... well it would be no different than how you are reacting now. The scriptures are for those who want to know God, to the casual reader they want have much meaning, if you were to ever change your mind an seek after God you would find the scriptures read very differently to you. If I'm stupid and God is who I believe Him to be then what does that make you.

GC

Basically, you keep saying that you won't quote scripture to me nor give me evidence because you don't think I'll accept it.

I haven't said that, i said in the state of mind you have now you would ignore them. Here's one, probably the most important one in the Bible, John 3:16. Here are some more, Luke 1:68-69, Luke 2:30, Acts 4:12, 2nd Corinthians 6:2.

I've told you before, show me the evidence and I'll believe. The only reason I reject your claim of a god is because I've received no evidence of his existence from you or from him. I've already told him that I'll listen whenever he's ready to show himself to me, so now I offer you the same. Give me the evidence and I'll consider it. Continue dancing around the issue, and I'll just have to assume you don't actually have it.

 You are demanding something from God and like I told Jesster it doesn't work that way. Isaiah 66:2 and Isaiah 57:15 this is the attitude you need to hear from God, the attitude you have now blocks your spirit from hearing God. Works will never save anyone but we must put forward an effort and seek. As I've said before I can't give you evidence that will suit your closed heart.

GC

---

Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.

GC

"Change within a kind" is evolution by another name.  Adaptation to changing environmental conditions is natural selection.  Hybrid infertility is an issue of disparate genetics.  Looks like you accept modern synth after all, you just think that it started significantly later than all available evidence demonstrates, when god decided to play around in the dirt.  Guess you've got some repenting to do, heretic.  Do your fundy literalist friends know that you accept evilution?

 They know I despise evolution, and they also understand that changes in a kind to adapt to the environment doesn't bring about a whole sale change in a kind. Your statement is just another song and dance to get around the failed theory of evolution.

GC