By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Underwater pryamids/cities give credence to Noah's Flood

pizzahut451 on 13 October 2010
axt113 said:
pizzahut451 said:
axt113 said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:


If the story of great flood on mankind for its wickedness is true, why does it matter if the biblical version is wrong or right? The story and the point are true, except for some other details

Funny that you call manking "wicked" and not the deity who killed everybody.

And it's high;y unlikely that any of those stories are true, as people back then had no ideea how big the world truly was (plus, people from different parts fo the world couldn't communicate how they did today, so it's not as if one could know what was going on around the world to begin with).


You're doing this again. I said IF the story is true, im not here to argue if the story is true or made up, all i said that if the actual story is true, than it doesnt matter what version of it it.

Oh and...

IF the story is INDEED true, than the deity (God) can not possbily be wicked, because if we assume that the story is true, we assume that God exists, and that means he cant be wicked because he is omnibenevolenct (perfect goodness). ''Wicked'' is like sinfull, and God cant possibly comitt a sin, since he is above it.


That's ridiculous, if God commits wicked acts, then he is wicked regardless of his power, he would just be perfect evil


Nope, thats impossible. IF He indeed exists, he cant possibly be evli, wicked or sinfull. The power of sin is not above him


Says who?  I say that that we define  whether he is good or evil, therefore if he commits acts that we consider wicked, he is wicked


Says God, and again, if WE ASSUME that he is real, then he must be right



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 13 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
axt113 said:
pizzahut451 said:
axt113 said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:


If the story of great flood on mankind for its wickedness is true, why does it matter if the biblical version is wrong or right? The story and the point are true, except for some other details

Funny that you call manking "wicked" and not the deity who killed everybody.

And it's high;y unlikely that any of those stories are true, as people back then had no ideea how big the world truly was (plus, people from different parts fo the world couldn't communicate how they did today, so it's not as if one could know what was going on around the world to begin with).


You're doing this again. I said IF the story is true, im not here to argue if the story is true or made up, all i said that if the actual story is true, than it doesnt matter what version of it it.

Oh and...

IF the story is INDEED true, than the deity (God) can not possbily be wicked, because if we assume that the story is true, we assume that God exists, and that means he cant be wicked because he is omnibenevolenct (perfect goodness). ''Wicked'' is like sinfull, and God cant possibly comitt a sin, since he is above it.


That's ridiculous, if God commits wicked acts, then he is wicked regardless of his power, he would just be perfect evil


Nope, thats impossible. IF He indeed exists, he cant possibly be evli, wicked or sinfull. The power of sin is not above him


Says who?  I say that that we define  whether he is good or evil, therefore if he commits acts that we consider wicked, he is wicked


Says God, and again, if WE ASSUME that he is real, then he must be right

No, not really. You have great problems with logic.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

liu777 on 14 October 2010

If your God was an actual person, he'd be known as one of the greatest monstrosities to have graced the planet. Your god has personally taken part in genocides. He advocates rape, eugenics, murder and all sorts of other wonderful things. Not many people on this planet could match his personal list. If he weren't some all knowing dude floating up in a cloud somewhere out of reach he should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.



axt113 on 14 October 2010
pizzahut451 said:
axt113 said:
pizzahut451 said:
axt113 said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:


If the story of great flood on mankind for its wickedness is true, why does it matter if the biblical version is wrong or right? The story and the point are true, except for some other details

Funny that you call manking "wicked" and not the deity who killed everybody.

And it's high;y unlikely that any of those stories are true, as people back then had no ideea how big the world truly was (plus, people from different parts fo the world couldn't communicate how they did today, so it's not as if one could know what was going on around the world to begin with).


You're doing this again. I said IF the story is true, im not here to argue if the story is true or made up, all i said that if the actual story is true, than it doesnt matter what version of it it.

Oh and...

IF the story is INDEED true, than the deity (God) can not possbily be wicked, because if we assume that the story is true, we assume that God exists, and that means he cant be wicked because he is omnibenevolenct (perfect goodness). ''Wicked'' is like sinfull, and God cant possibly comitt a sin, since he is above it.


That's ridiculous, if God commits wicked acts, then he is wicked regardless of his power, he would just be perfect evil


Nope, thats impossible. IF He indeed exists, he cant possibly be evli, wicked or sinfull. The power of sin is not above him


Says who?  I say that that we define  whether he is good or evil, therefore if he commits acts that we consider wicked, he is wicked


Says God, and again, if WE ASSUME that he is real, then he must be right


Again says who?  I say he can be wrong



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

kowhoho on 14 October 2010

Let's take a moment to look at the Bible for the sake of the argument that has been raging between pizzahut and miscellaneous VGC members. I think it's safe to say that the Bible is the most concrete (and only all-encompassing) medium from which religious people can learn God's will. Some say God compelled these disciples to write the bible while others say they were just people who were there and took it down in writing. If the latter is true, then we can wholly discount the bible as being the true word of God. If it was written by men, imperfect as they are, how can we trust anything it says with complete certainty? Some say that the stories of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally and are only meant to teach lessons, while certain others actually did happen. Well, at what point have you begun to separate the stories into fiction and nonfiction on the basis of what you personally think? How can we be sure what is real and what is not? In this case every verse could potentially be false.

Let's say though, for the sake of argument, that the disciples were truly under the orders of God and penned his words perfectly onto the pages of the Bible. If this is the case, why does the bible contradict itself so often? For instance, Jacob says in Genesis 32:30: "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved," while God himself says: "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live," in Exodus 33:20.

There is also the question of whether Jesus stayed on Earth for a while after being reborn.

Mark: no.

Luke: No, it all happened on a Sunday.

John: Yes, at least eight days

Acts 1:3: Yes, at least forty days.

Don't even get me started on the books that were omitted from the Bible. How can I take seriously a religious text that people have felt the need to "edit?" This is complete horse sh*t!

So, if the Bible is complete hogwash, how can one profess the belief in the Abrahamic God? And even if he did exist, how could he allow the only thing that connects us to him to be so riddled with contradictions and falsehoods? Seems like a flawed approach from a decidedly imperfect god.



I survived the Apocalyps3