Adam, Eve, Cain and Enoch

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The only incontrovertible evidence you provided proved my theory that you are clearly bonkers. You are without doubt a few sandwiches short of a picnic!!!

[b]Galvos excellent ice caps and temperate climate theory

Are you kidding me?! Do you really believe that or is that a wind up?! His 'evidence' that the ice caps were only 5,000yrs old had a ...[text shortened]... ore was 450,000yrs old!!!!! Buffoonery of the highest order, which you now call 'excellent'.[/b]

yes i am only having a little fun Noobster, but you can see that, old Zapansy, he is too quick with his condemnations and too frigid, like professor yaffle the carved wooden bookend from bag-puss, and like the mice from the mouse organ, we like to play tricks on him 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, please read it carefully, it says, ALSO, their love and their hate and their jealousy.

how do yu define ALSO?? i mentioned love hate jealousy, and the 2 of my understanding. they ALSO die but not the soul/spirit.
if im badgering you thats not my way, just as you do i read and understand yet get different conclution, tho im not in full agreement with my chosen practice of faith do you follow yours without question.

Originally posted by stoker
how do yu define ALSO?? i mentioned love hate jealousy, and the 2 of my understanding. they ALSO die but not the soul/spirit.
if im badgering you thats not my way, just as you do i read and understand yet get different conclution, tho im not in full agreement with my chosen practice of faith do you follow yours without question.

(Ezekiel 18:4) . . .The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

clearly showing that the soul is mortal and thus capable of death.

as for questioning my beliefs, yes i do, there are some aspects of the bible that do not sit well with me, for example the violence and while i can find justification for this, for example that the Canaanites practised child sacrifice and other morally detestable things, violence still does not fit well with me. i however am willing to admit that i do not know as much as God and who am I to contest with him.

you do not need to worry about badgering me, you are most welcome, in fact, your posts are a welcome contrast to the gargantuan and rampant egotism of some of the forums contributors.

i belive the soul/spirit returns to the maker for judgement and is marked so when the day comes the sinfull soul may die or suffer eternal weeping and others to eternal joy, sheep /goats [so the angels can seperate them if your wondering about the mark]. But my point about your faith was if you belived something and the elders said no do you then go with them? i ask this because ive been in the presence of a soul departed.

as for questioning my beliefs, yes i do, there are some aspects of the bible that do not sit well with me, for example the violence and while i can find justification for this, for example that the Canaanites practised child sacrifice and other morally detestable things, violence still does not fit well with me. i however am willing to admit that i do not know as much as God and who am I to contest with him.

thats a cop out!!!

You're saying that we can't understand everything in the bible coz the guy who wrote it was cleverer than us?

I teach chidren to consider their audience when writing or presenting arguments, you think God is less able?

If the Bible is God's word it is intended for our intellect and shoud be understandable by us. We cannot use an argument of "thats too much for our puny brains"

I understand that a God would be vastly more inteligent than us but why wouldnt he dumb down his messages so that we can understand them?

Originally posted by stoker
i belive the soul/spirit returns to the maker for judgement and is marked so when the day comes the sinfull soul may die or suffer eternal weeping and others to eternal joy, sheep /goats [so the angels can seperate them if your wondering about the mark]. But my point about your faith was if you belived something and the elders said no do you then go with them? i ask this because ive been in the presence of a soul departed.

who are the Elders, they are not masters over our faith? we have our own consciences to exercise, that being said, we are united in worship and disagreements over spiritual matters are never really an issue. please consider this verse.

(Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

why does Paul state be obedient AND submissive? please ponder on this.

as for your experience i have no way of discounting it, it is a personal experience and cannot be subject to reason, all i can state with any certainty is that to me, the scriptures indicate, that the dead cannot influence the living.

no, you are misunderstanding the intent, i never meant understand as in grasping something intellectually, i meant accept. Perhaps you are confusing the two?

for example i understand the reasons as to why the Israelites battled with the Canaanite nations, i can even try to justify their actions, but that does not mean that i accept them as my own. i do not know the whole picture, i was not there, i am a human being, i am therefore limited as to what i can state and what i cannot. i am imperfect and make mistakes. i have only a few decades of experience. i cannot even create a blade of grass. i am not a God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, you are misunderstanding the intent, i never meant understand as in grasping something intellectually, i meant accept.

Accepting, not understanding. Fundamentalism!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Accepting, not understanding. Fundamentalism!

in order to accept something, one must surely first and foremost understand it? no? i do not think that is the same as fundamentalism, quite the opposite in fact, for it seems to me, that fundamentalism is acceptance with recourse to reason. perhaps you can teach me something and prove me wrong Fabian? and anyway, i stated that there were certain things that were unacceptable to me, personally, that does not mean that i do not understand them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in order to accept something, one must surely first and foremost understand it? no?

Not neccessarily, no. In science, yes of course, but in religion, no.

In order to discuss evolution, as an example, you have to understand it first. If you don't understand it, then how is it possible to discuss it?

As I understand fundamentalism it is about accepting things without intellectually understand it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Not neccessarily, no. In science, yes of course, but in religion, no.

In order to discuss evolution, as an example, you have to understand it first. If you don't understand it, then how is it possible to discuss it?

As I understand fundamentalism it is about accepting things without intellectually understand it.

in religion i think it is the same, for belief without reason, is blind faith.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in religion i think it is the same, for belief without reason, is blind faith.

A very good definition of fundamentalism.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A very good definition of fundamentalism.

yes but there are surely degrees of understanding, is there not. for example, you have a numerical indicator that you understand more about chess than me, yet we both may understand that bishops like diagonals and rooks open files. is it not the case? therefore there must be degrees of fundamentalism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but there are surely degrees of understanding, is there not. for example, you have a numerical indicator that you understand more about chess than me, yet we both may understand that bishops like diagonals and rooks open files. is it not the case? therefore there must be degrees of fundamentalism.

Chess is not religion, robbie.
Praying to god for a good move ina tricky situation violates TOS 3(c): "While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party." God is a third party, is she not?
I hope you don't cheat...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Chess is not religion, robbie.
Praying to god for a good move ina tricky situation violates TOS 3(c): "While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party." God is a third party, is she not?
I hope you don't cheat...

😀
Those cheatin' bible bashers - thats why I keep losin' !!!