A closer look at the creation story

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In the first line this dolt argued that there is no proof the universe was ever created, that it ever had a "start."

No, I argued that you presented none. Damn son, you camt even follow a so.ple discussion.

I also argued that , while it may appear to those within our universe that it had a beginning, that doesnt mean it did.

Literally not one word of your bitchy little rant speaksto any of my points. Add to that thatnot only can you not support your points, you don't even know what they are...and you ate embarrassing yourself .

 

[toobfreak]

In the first line this dolt argued that there is no proof the universe was ever created, that it ever had a "start."

No, I argued that you presented none.
I also argued that , while it may appear to those within our universe that it had a beginning, that doesnt mean it did.
Literally not one word of your bitchy little rant speaks to any of my points. Add to that that not only can you not support your points, you don't even know what they are....

Still unwilling to address how in one breath you said there was no creation, then went right into the next post stating there HAD to be!

You present NOTHING while claiming those who do haven't. I've already given you detailed proof which I'm still waiting for you to refute! But then, you never address anyone else's points or questions, you avoid them by denying they happened.
Fact of the matter is that IF the universe HAD A BEGINNING, then it was created. You cannot escape that simple truth. Meantime, I never claimed it HAD or did NOT have a beginning, or that the universe is even real. There is no proof the universe is nothing more than a projection of the reality we create in our own minds!

But IF IT HAD A BEGINNING, it had to have been created, a START. Period. Live with it.

Don't ask anyone to address your points when you never have any, nor do you ever address anyone else's.

I KNOW my points, I've listed them, laid out the logic. It's not my problem you're too fucked in the head to get it.

 

[norwegen]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

 

[hobelim]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

Divine law is consistently called a light to the nations.

What other kind of light can be spoken into existence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still unwilling to address how in one breath you said there was no creation,

I never said that. There may have been an intelligent creation.

But IF IT HAD A BEGINNING, it had to have been created, a START.

Which does not support the idea of an intelligent creator, which is what you are getting at .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Divine law is consistently called a light to the nations.

What other kind of light can be spoken into existence?

None, and not that, either. Magical horseshit.

 

[Hollie]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.

Who told the truth?

 

[hobelim]

Divine law is consistently called a light to the nations.

What other kind of light can be spoken into existence?

None, and not that, either. Magical horseshit.

lol...right...

There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only guiding light in life is a lie.


presto alakazam!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Divine law is consistently called a light to the nations.

What other kind of light can be spoken into existence?

None, and not that, either. Magical horseshit.

lol...

There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only guiding light in life is a lie.

Oh look, the shaman pinched off a turd of a word salad. Somehow, I'm not moved.

 

[hobelim]

Divine law is consistently called a light to the nations.

What other kind of light can be spoken into existence?

None, and not that, either. Magical horseshit.

lol...

There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only guiding light in life is a lie.

Oh look, the shaman pinched off a turd of a word salad. Somehow, I'm not moved.

lol...aww. you think that I am trying to convince you about something. How cute!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Divine law is consistently called a light to the nations.

What other kind of light can be spoken into existence?

None, and not that, either. Magical horseshit.

lol...

There is no darkness greater than the darkness in the mind of the person whose only guiding light in life is a lie.

Oh look, the shaman pinched off a turd of a word salad. Somehow, I'm not moved.

lol...aww. you think that I am trying to convince you about something. How cute!

No, i think your are trying to fellate yourself.

 

[toobfreak]

Still unwilling to address how in one breath you said there was no creation,

I never said that. There may have been an intelligent creation.

You never said that? Dipshit, YOU JUST SAID IT. And you said it first in Post 19. Damn, your head must be neutronium. You must still think Bill Clinton never said IS.

But IF IT HAD A BEGINNING, it had to have been created, a START.

Which does not support the idea of an intelligent creator, which is what you are getting at .[/QUOTE]

Fuckhead! I NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER said a word about INTELLIGENT creation! You have bullshit coming out your ears.

You need help.

All I ever said was that if the universe had a beginning, then it had a start. A start is the same thing as creation. It went from non-existence to existence. A BEGINNING. This is FIRST GRADE fucking shit, dude. I never said a word about what TYPE of creation. You need a fucking pill. You can't tell fucking reality from the voices in your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You never said that? Dipshit, YOU JUST SAID IT. And you said it first in Post 19.

Lie and lie. I never said it. You are a rabid little freak.

 

[norwegen]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

So, basically, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. I imagine the 15th century you would have made it all mean something very different than the 21st century you.

 

[norwegen]

As we see in every thread where the Bible thumpers insist upon a 6,000 year old planet and other literal interpretations of their bibles, there are
always irreconcilable contradictions to physical laws, hard facts and peer reviewed science.

It’s just an inconvenient truth that the Genesis fable is a flawed, contradictory tale that is actually devastating to the notion of supernatural creation.

Genesis is not flawed. It is not an account of the origin of the earth, that little blue orb in our solar system. It's an account of the origin of the earth, Palastine and the Levant, the seat of which, to the people of God, would be Jerusalem.

It's a temple story, something that the ancients were actually able to grasp.

The Genesis fable is a contradictory mess, written by unknown authors who turned the Christian gods into liars.

It was the superstitious invention of gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.

It was the superstitious invention of satan who said eating the apple would not cause A&E to die.


Who told the truth?

You're like fundamentalist Christians who read the story literally.

What was the fruit of the tree of life? (Hint: the Bible doesn't say apple.) What did it look like? What did it taste like? Has one ever been found and classified? And how does a tree grow in more than one place, such as on two different sides of a river (Rv 22:2)?

In the midst of the Garden was not a woody plant but rather the good things of God. And also idolatry, a knowledge of everything.

You're just like a fundamentalist who reads out of context. What is the earth? The globe? Did any kingdom ever rule over the whole earth, as we read in Daniel (2:39)? Genesis is not about the creation of the planet. The planet was never a disc covered by a dome bedazzled with stars, the sun, and the moon.

You and the fundies project your 21st-century worldviews onto the ancient manuscripts. It creates confusion.

So, basically, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. I imagine the 15th century you would have made it all mean something very different than the 21st century you.

No, you cannot make it mean whatever you want it to mean. It means whatever historical, literary, and cultural context says it means. To derive a reasonable meaning, the 15th-century me and the 21st-century me would still have to read it in its proper context.

You think like a fundy, too.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you cannot make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Sure you can. Amd you just did. And i can find 100 different christian sectarians and get 100 versions of what that part means. And there is no way to tell who is correct.. Which basically means all of you are full of it.

 

[norwegen]

No, you cannot make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Sure you can. Amd you just did. And i can find 100 different christian sectarians and get 100 versions of what that part means. And there is no way to tell who is correct.. Which basically means all of you are full of it.

Let me guess. When you read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, you thought Mark Twain was writing about your generation.

Yea, Fundy. You know you did.

 

[toobfreak]

You never said that? Dipshit, YOU JUST SAID IT. And you said it first in Post 19.

Lie and lie. I never said it. You are a rabid little freak.

Amazing disconnect. Your words are right there in black and white. I've even given the post numbers. Time to move on. Never pays to argue with an idiot.

 

[ding]

The earth and the Universe are billions of years old and is completely compatible with scripture.

What scripture and how much expertise do you have?

Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 is the allegorical account of creation and tells us that God created space and time and that man is a product of that creation.

Seems accurate to me.

The story of Genesis has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe, space, time, the solar system, the earth, nor the first plants, animals, or humans..

Genesis is about the creation of the distinction between heaven and earth, a world above and the world below, by an extraterrestrial intelligence when law designed to instruct perplexed human beings to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, life and death, was spoken into existence like a dividing light in a world that was without shape or form, astonishingly void, and covered in darkness for billions of years.

Incorrect.

wow, that was quite a response, devoid of any sign of intelligence, but very impressive.

I will let you on on a little secret.

Any written story that starts with "in the beginning' just like "once upon a time" and introduces a talking serpent in paradise isn't about the big bang or the beginning of time, but it is about exactly what I said, the establishment of divine law like a light to the nations in the midst of the darkness of a world run by and filled with blithering idiots.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is ancient man’s allegorical account of his belief that God created existence and man is a product of that creation.

When it comes to the creation of space and time there are only two options. Either it was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

If you believe in God as you claim you do you must believe the former.