HelenM

Hi Michael

What you said implies that what happened to the rest of the world was unconnected with their chosen behavior.

The Bible says otherwise.

It seems clear to the Bible authors that Noah was saved for his righteousness and the rest of the world was not saved because of their lack thereof...if you read it you'll see that I'm sure

In case you don't have a Bible here it is:

It seems to me that the Bible authors believed there was a direct connection between the behavior of the people and what happened to them when the flood came.

love
Helen

The Other Michael

Hi Helen,

I guess I didn't make myself clear, but I'm sure it won't be the last time.

It appears that miracles aren't just to bedazzle the faithful since they can also have other effects such as to wreak havoc on other beings.

And it would seem likely that there must have been a few small children who hadn't reached a level of conscious volition in the "wreak-ee" category at the time of the Flood. But they were probably disrespectful and their parents were going to get around to stoning them (or maybe the parents WEREN'T going to stone them, which meant they weren't keeping the law, justifying their obliteration too) so no big loss.

Perhaps it belongs in a separate thread, but I find myself wondering what all the critters were doing to irritate God?

cheers,
Michael

Moderator - am I getting too far off topic here?

thanks -M

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

tommyc

You could try joining the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000275&p=15" target="_blank">epic flood debate</a> going on in the evolution/creation forum. Im sure Ed would be more than happy to hear your input on the subject.

HelenM

I'm not sure the sin of the children was the only issue...practically speaking, you can't save children anyway if they have no parents to raise them, can you?

It seems pointless to argue for saving kids if you have no way of raising them.

Maybe that sounds callous...but I'm just trying to be realistic...

love
Helen

Tercel

Actually, I've learned a lot of things here. But skepticism is not one of them.

Jesus mything is the idea that Jesus never existed as any sort of historical figure and is made up in all respects. Basically put, Jesus Mything is to History what Young Earth Creationism is to Science.
I'll explain it's popularity for you: People have a tendency to uncritically accept arguments whose conclusions agree with their presuppositions.

The beef I have is that the atheists too often claim that since we can be sure that some people are tricking themselves then all are.
Clearly whether or not there exist true supernatural claims, there will exist made-up ones given humankinds' natural curisoity and awe of the supernatural. Hence the fact that there exists many certainly false claims, does <strong>not</strong> in any way count as evidence against the existence of true supernatural claims in general.

Vorkosigan

Jesus mything is the idea that Jesus never existed as any sort of historical figure and is made up in all respects. Basically put, Jesus Mything is to History what Young Earth Creationism is to Science.
I'll explain it's popularity for you: People have a tendency to uncritically accept arguments whose conclusions agree with their presuppositions.

Nothing gets a Christian apologist's fur riled more quickly than treating his mythology in the same way all other mythologies are treated.

Vorkosigan

Toto

This is an outright lie, and I'm getting tired of hearing it. The idea that Jesus was a myth is a minority position, even among skeptics, but it does not go against the evidence the way YEC does. You do not have any hard evidence to prove the existence of Jesus that compares to the evidence for evolution or the age of the earth.

Where is the talkorigins for the Historic Jesus position, where knowledgable people answer all of the questions about the real Jesus? It isn't there. Historians can't agree on anything about Jesus, except that they wished they had more evidence from that period of time.

This is the typical bunk that supernaturalists always come up with. Sure, you've been fooled the past 3,000,000 times, but this time it might be real! But every time an alleged miracle is investigated under controlled conditions, it turns out to be either fraud or explained some other way. That is why Randi has his $1 million dollar reward out there.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Anunnaki

Thank you Toto.
I couldn`t agree with you more and Tercel has certainly outdone himself in the bullshit department on this thread.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

DarkBronzePlant

Yet it's percectly fine for you to point your finger at other people who think they are talking to spirits and claim that they're deluded; but not you, no... your cult is the only one that is talking to a real spirit.

You see no irony here?
No, it's not evidence of anything. It just makes it really funny (or sad, I'm not sure which) for us observers watching you criticize other people's spirits yet base your entire life around the existence of your spirit.

I've seen some skeptics assert that there was no Jesus, correct. But for the same reason they don't believe in a god: they've found no overwhelming evidence for his existence.

And at the same time, I've found far more skeptics who will agree that Jesus did exist. Myself included. So I'll turn the question back to you: how would you explain the popularity of accepting a conclusion which would only serve to disagree with one's existing beliefs/disbeliefs?