I'm conflicted about the Bible. Will you discuss it with me?
- Thread starter Conflicted
- Start date
I miss (by design) a lot of the nonsense he writes! :lol:
That was YOUR quote from Genesis! I was just pointing out the absurdity!:smile:
Come up with your version of how it would take 5 months for 'water' to drain away from a mountain top that has 22ft on it. My version has it as ice melting.
So basically your logic falls flat then, not really a surprise.
How much rain would it take cover Everest. Has the crest of Everest ever even had rain, rather than snow?
CONGRADULATIONS!!! 100 times of using the same lame-ass excuse for a 'non-reply', you should make it you signature or at least put it were a C&P can save you a few moments of your 'valuable time'.
You're the one claiming the story's true, against all evidence and logic to the contrary, it's up to you to prove it. And until you do, I'll just keep telling you it's all made up. That's the only sensible answer to most of your questions.
I got that the first timer you said I was an idiot for taking the Bible literally. What were the other times for, think I was too much of an idiot to understand you the first time?
Prove the writers understood all the many cross-references there are. You didn't even get Revelation right in that it was not written to slide past the Roman Government, it was to bring the Roman Government into the belief in God club. Hard to do that if the message is hidden and to start off a relationship with a lie is a sure fire way to insure it doesn't last.
You like to play with proof exclusively, prove all the stuff they say about black holes like material always goes in and never comes out and it gets infinitely small. Prove that a sun keeps shinning after it has gone over the event horizon. You want me to accept those statements on 'faith without proof'.
I already showed you that the end-times involves the whole 'inhabitated earth' and the Bible says the 'bad guys' are given 1/4 of the earth. That you deny it was a reference to the land area over the water area, that is your denial speaking and is is not proof that is what the verse was saying. Nor does being being off by a few % spoil the verse because as far as quarters go land does cover 1/4 of the earth. You would think a scientist would jump at seeing the connection, it is a died in the wool Atheist that will deny the connection and in religion that is what you operate on rather than a scientific principles. That's not a big deal, but really, get off your high horse about how superior you are when what you defend is far from being infallible.
Logic, like me saying rain piled upto a certain depth and then stayed that way for 5 months or you saying it could never happen as water doesn't act like that so I cool the water off till it is ice and then you come up with the 'changing things' argument when that isn't even a reply, Watch, can freezing rain ever reach a depth of about 20 ft, yes or no?
Prove the writers understood all the many cross-references there are. You didn't even get Revelation right in that it was not written to slide past the Roman Government, it was to bring the Roman Government into the belief in God club. Hard to do that if the message is hidden and to start off a relationship with a lie is a sure fire way to insure it doesn't last.
You like to play with proof exclusively, prove all the stuff they say about black holes like material always goes in and never comes out and it gets infinitely small. Prove that a sun keeps shinning after it has gone over the event horizon. You want me to accept those statements on 'faith without proof'.
I already showed you that the end-times involves the whole 'inhabitated earth' and the Bible says the 'bad guys' are given 1/4 of the earth. That you deny it was a reference to the land area over the water area, that is your denial speaking and is is not proof that is what the verse was saying. Nor does being being off by a few % spoil the verse because as far as quarters go land does cover 1/4 of the earth. You would think a scientist would jump at seeing the connection, it is a died in the wool Atheist that will deny the connection and in religion that is what you operate on rather than a scientific principles. That's not a big deal, but really, get off your high horse about how superior you are when what you defend is far from being infallible.
Logic, like me saying rain piled upto a certain depth and then stayed that way for 5 months or you saying it could never happen as water doesn't act like that so I cool the water off till it is ice and then you come up with the 'changing things' argument when that isn't even a reply, Watch, can freezing rain ever reach a depth of about 20 ft, yes or no?
Last edited:
Probably not the only thing you hate about me, like I ****ing care what hate and what you don't
Pretty sure about one item, that pretty much is you whole knowledge of the Bible in just one sentence that starts out with a definitive 'pretty sure'.