It’s quite odd that the missionaries were so against killing
Because there is quite a lot of killing and torture in their Bible
shareI think you are a troll who has never read the Bible and can only speak in generic cliches.
There’s quite a lot of genocide in the Bible, the Bible compels people to think that God flooding the world and killing the entire global population other than 8 is a good thing. That is far worse than Rambo or the Burmese army ever did
shareWhy? You mean the Creator judging His creation is a bad thing? Who are you to decide that judgment from God is a bad thing? Unless you’re placing yourself on equal footing with the Creator, of course.
As far as “lots of genocide in the Bible”, where, pray tell, do the people take it upon themselves and are rewarded for having done so?
You haven’t thought this through very well.
Oh so God committing genocide is OK but when the Burmese army doesn't it's not. Well then you're God is a hypocrite.
Also your God is imaginary, want to change my mind: PROVE IT
The Creator removing part of his creation is not equivalent to creation removing part of the creation. Very poor logic. Unfortunately I don’t expect better.
(BTW, if you mean the possessive tense you want to write “your” not “you’re”. This is not difficult.)
I have also come to believe that you are not clear on the definition of “genocide”. Capital punishment, even on a large scale, falls nowhere in the universe of the definition of “genocide”. This is another logical fallacy on your part.
I don’t think your (sic) interested in having your mind changed. Also I’m not particularly interested in changing you’re (sic) mind. I don’t really care what you believe as long as the logic you spew is sound. This far it falls woefully short of sound.
According to you he killed the entire global population except for 8. That is genocide and that included infants and innocent children. The God of the Bible is an evil, immoral monster and stop making excuses
shareUh, the Capitol punishment of the guilty is not the killing of innocent.
I’m done. I’ve wasted enough time dealing with an illiterate.
LOL I refuse to believe that every single one of the millions of people on Earth including infants and children were so horrible that they deserved to drown. Your imaginary God is more evil than the Burmese Army, Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Kahn combined together, considering he tortures people simply for who they are and for not loving him enough.
shareWelcome to my ignore list.
shareCoward
shareI think juschill is correct in that god created all those people , apparently , and that gives him the right to destroy them (rightly or wrongly) whereas your Burma example is peer-to-peer killing.
To accurately dis the bible you need to find examples of that happening, and God and therefore his subjects being allright with it.
God is supposed to love all people, no? If god is able to kill me because he (supposedly) created me, then that's not a god I'd like to worship.
shareNo need for the name-calling, probably.
Anyway, here's another answer to your question: When it's all said and done, we're al going to die and our lives are but a blip on the landscape of eternity. If in fact we are eternal beings, our brief sojourn on this earth is little more than an instant. We're all headed to the grave, whether now or later.
God created life; he can take it. Humans don't reserve the same right.
What's ultimately important is not that our lives come to an end here; what's important what happens after we pass from this phase of our existence to the next.
But hey, you're not required to believe any of this. I thought it was all bullshit for many years.
First of all how do you know god created life (or that there’s a god to begin with) and that there’s an afterlife?
Secondly no that is absolutely a double standard that the one making the rule of no killing is breaking his own rule. He should lead by example but doesn’t because he’s a sadist.
I don't "know" that there's a God or that there's an afterlife. But after reviewing all the evidence and thinking about it philosophically, it seems to me the most likely scenario. As I mentioned, I wasn't always a believer. But one thing I learned was that no matter whether you go with theism or atheism, there will be unanswered questions. You have to be prepared to live with this either way.
Regarding killing, in the Bible there is no passage where God says do not kill. The oft-quoted King James version does have the commandment "thou shalt not kill," but this is a mistranslation. It really should be translated as do not murder, not do not kill. The God of the Bible knows that sometimes killing is justified (self-defense, for instance). In fact, the book of Ecclesiastes says directly: "There is a time to kill and a time to heal."
What evidence? Also just going with the most likely scenario doesn't get you to the right answer and you are appealing to your own ignorance in the process. If you look at all of the proposed scenarios if none of them have sufficient evidence then they can all be wrong.
As for killing it is the 6th commandment and the point was the missionaries seemed to think that killing was never right even if it was to protect innocent people. Even if the 6th commandment was do not murder the God of the Bible has murdered or has ordered the murder of many people. Therefore killing/murdering should have been right up the missionaries ally.
You didn't even try to prove him wrong on any of his points. Probably because he is right.
shareAlso there are so many reasons why everyone on that boat would have died. After the flood the plants are most definitely dead meaning the herbivores have nothing to eat, meaning they die, meaning the carnivores are dead meaning the biosphere is screwed. It's very similar to a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
shareWhy doesn't the all-knowing, allmighty god send his message in a way that will make his creations progress and improve? If he doesn't want to, and likes to "capitol punish" (*cough* massacre *cough*), then he's evil. If he wants to but can't, he's incompetent.
If you ask me, your god sounds a lot like angry desert men who lived two thousand years ago.
Are you really getting all bent of of shape over god? Thats like getting mad over puff the magic dragon.
shareBecause there are people out there who think horrible things should happen to me because I don't accept their baseless assertions. There are people out there who think creationism should be taught in science class and that this one book should dictate everyone's lives.
shareWell if take the bible literally then some parts of it do paint God as an evil fucker, just look at Moses when the first born of every family was killed. That would have been death to countless infants which would have been incapable of having done anything to really deserve being killed. That wasn't because he was mad at what he had created but rather because he just wanted one man, to release a group of people if that isn't evil then what is?
share"According to you he killed the entire global population except for 8. That is genocide and that included infants and innocent children."
The term "genocide" only applies to the killing of humans. The beings killed in the flood weren't humans, they were angel/human hybrids, AKA: giants, AKA: Nephilim.
Noah and his family were the only humans left on Earth at the time, which is why the Bible says that Noah was "perfect in his generations":
"Genesis 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God."
There's more information about the Nephilim in the Book of Enoch, which is a book that is mentioned in the Bible, but not included in the Bible. Humans were on the verge of extinction for two reasons: (1) hybridization, which means less humans were being born, and (2) the hybrids/Nephilim liked to kill and eat humans. Had they not been wiped out by the flood, and had the angels responsible for the hybridization not been imprisoned, humans would have become extinct.
Doesn’t matter it’s still evil and this idea that every single living thing on earth deserved this is absurd. The God of the Bible is an evil , immoral monster
share"Doesn’t matter"
Yes, it does, since it refutes your assertion that it was genocide. Not only does it matter, but it's the only thing that matters, given that refuting your false assertion was the only point of my post.
"it’s still evil and this idea that every single living thing on earth deserved this is absurd. The God of the Bible is an evil , immoral monster"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Also the flood is scientifically absurd on so many levels, it didn’t even happen"
Whether it really happened or not is utterly irrelevant, i.e., it's another non sequitur. Your post that I replied to was about what happened in the Bible, and in the Bible, the flood did happen, obviously.
It was killing, it was mass killing and this is really a new one BTW, can you show me any scientific evidence of the existence of giants or angel hybrids whatever you said it was. Also your Genesis Bible Verse doesn't say anything about the organisms killed not being human. Your God has a higher body count than Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Kahn put together. If you honestly think that everyone that was killed during the alleged flood deserved it then you are deluded.
You theists have to make so many leaps in morality/logic to make your presuppositions work that it's really embarrassing.
Also modern humans evolved a few hundred thousand years ago, they absolutely were on the planet at the time of your little flood myth and according to the bible only 2 of every species survived so yes he would have killed just about the entire human population.
shareAlso your point about there not being modern day humans back then (which is absurd) is also nonsense. If I kill my cat just for the heck of it I did something evil. Except your God didn't just kill one cat, he killed every single cat on the face of the planet aside from 2 along with billions of other innocent organisms. He's a real POS.
shareBlasting pheme...sinner!
shareWhy did you reply to one post three times? Are you new to the internet?
"It was killing, it was mass killing"
It wasn't killing humans, therefore it wasn't genocide.
"and this is really a new one BTW"
New to you, because you're trying to argue about a topic you know nothing about. The writings that it comes from are thousands of years old, not new.
"BTW, can you show me any scientific evidence of the existence of giants or angel hybrids whatever you said it was."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. This isn't about what really happened, it's about what happened according to the Bible.
"Also your Genesis Bible Verse doesn't say anything about the organisms killed not being human."
They were the offspring of angels and humans, and said offspring were called "giants" or "Nephilim," depending on the translation. That makes them hybrids, i.e., non-human, by definition.
"Your God has a higher body count than Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Kahn put together. If you honestly think that everyone that was killed during the alleged flood deserved it then you are deluded.
You theists have to make so many leaps in morality/logic to make your presuppositions work that it's really embarrassing."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Also modern humans evolved a few hundred thousand years ago, they absolutely were on the planet at the time of your little flood myth and according to the bible only 2 of every species survived so yes he would have killed just about the entire human population."
This is yet another non sequitur from you. Consider it dismissed out of hand.
"Also your point about there not being modern day humans back then (which is absurd) is also nonsense. If I kill my cat just for the heck of it I did something evil. Except your God didn't just kill one cat, he killed every single cat on the face of the planet aside from 2 along with billions of other innocent organisms. He's a real POS."
And another non sequitur from you. Again, in the Bible, the creatures that were killed in the flood were Nephilim, not humans, therefore it wasn't genocide. Anything you say which doesn't that point is a non sequitur, which can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.
Sorry you weren't able to handle it
- Modern day humans have been around for the past couple hundred thousand years or so so yes he did kill millions of humans. I'm also interested in seeing the bible verse that says no modern day humans were killed in the flood??? Even if your little myth about angel/giant hybrids is true he still murdered billions of innocent lifeforms, he's a sadist.
- How do humans and angels have sex? Again your Genesis verse didn't even mention that. I think you're just making this up and I have never heard a creationist say this so clearly you guys aren't on the same page here. Who am I supposed to believe? Why should I believe that person?
- You can keep saying my points are dismissed but that doesn't add an ounce of credibility to your nonsense. I have already debunked your assertion that modern day humans didn't live back then and either way it doesn't matter because he still slaughtered billions of innocent life forms. If I took a litter of kittens and drowned them in the bathtub you'd think I was a monster correct? How is your God any different.
"Sorry you weren't able to handle it"
Given that I "handled it" just fine, this is yet another in a long line of non sequiturs from you. Consider it dismissed out of hand, newbie.
"- Modern day humans have been around for the past couple hundred thousand years or so so yes he did kill millions of humans. Even if your little myth about angel/giant hybrids is true he still murdered billions of innocent lifeforms, he's a sadist."
Again, in the Bible, the creatures that were killed in the flood were Nephilim, not humans, therefore it wasn't genocide. Anything you say which doesn't address that point is a non sequitur, which can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.
"- How do humans and angels have sex? Again your Genesis verse didn't even mention that. I think you're just making this up and I have never heard a creationist say this so clearly you guys aren't on the same page here. Who am I supposed to believe? Why should I believe that person?"
You think I'm making it up? LOL at that. You're not the fastest car on the lot, are you? You can start by typing the word "Nephilim" into e.g., Google, or are you too new to the internet to be aware of search engines? As for how "humans and angels have sex," not that it's a relevant question, but you can start by asking your parents to tell you about the birds and the bees. If the story is true (and it doesn't matter if it is or not), then it simply means that angels and humans are genetically close enough to produce offspring, like horses and donkeys are (which produces a mule).
"You can keep saying my points are dismissed but that doesn't add an ounce of credibility to your nonsense."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"I have already debunked your assertion that modern day humans didn't live back then and either way it"
I never made any such assertion, dim bulb, which means you've posted yet another non sequitur. Noah and his family were modern humans, obviously. The Nephilim being non-humans has nothing to do with "modern" or "not modern;" they weren't human because they were hybrids, just as a mule isn't a horse or a donkey.
"and either way it doesn't matter because he still slaughtered billions of innocent life forms. If I took a litter of kittens and drowned them in the bathtub you'd think I was a monster correct? How is your God any different."
Again, in the Bible, the creatures that were killed in the flood were Nephilim, not humans, therefore it wasn't genocide like you claimed. Anything you say which doesn't address that point is a non sequitur, which can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.
- Actually you are handling it pretty poorly, you're just giving baseless assertions that are not backed up by your fictional bible or reality. And apparently it was too much for you considering you complained about it.
- First of all where in the bible does it say there were no modern day humans a few thousand years ago
- All geologic evidence proves that modern day humans did exist hundreds of thousands of years ago. So even if your little flood myth is true God definitely murdered millions of people whether they were innocent or not, and yeah I'm not buying that most of them weren't innocent.
- You never answered my question since it's OK to drown Nephilim is it OK to take a litter of kittens and drown them in the bathtub?
- No you said that Nephilim were the offspring of humans and angels therefore they must be able to breed together. Strawman, I never asserted I didn't know how sex worked you moron, you can't produce fertile offspring by having sex with a horse so therefore it's perfectly logical that you'd need an explanation how an angel and a human can have sex to produce fertile offspring. If you can't provide one then I have no reason to accept your Nephilim hogwash.
- So if you concede modern day humans did exist back then then your entire premise falls flat on its stupid face, that means that God did murder millions of innocent people (or non Nephillim humans as you put it). Or are you trying to assert that the only modern day humans were on that boat? Well that also falls flat on its stupid face because all demographic studies show that the human population was in the millions 4 thousand years ago. (and no this is not a non sequitur, you've made a baseless assertion and I'm proving to you that it's garbage.)
- Also why exactly is someone's life not worth as much if they aren't humans? I guess again you have no problem with drowning kittens in a bathtub and this has to be the 4th time I have asked you to address this point. Let's assume that I grant you every premise that you've put forth, he still killed billions of organisms and you will never convince me they all deserved it. If they did all deserve it I'd like to know what every single organism did that they deserved to die a horrible horrible death.
Finally quit using the term non sequitur, you don't know what it means, you aren't using it properly and it's making you look like a bigger dumbass than you have to.
"Actually you are handling it pretty poorly, you're just giving baseless assertions that are not backed up by your fictional bible or reality. And apparently it was too much for you considering you complained about it. "
Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug.
"- First of all where in the bible does it say there were no modern day humans a few thousand years ago"
This is another non sequitur, and a Reading Disability Alert for you.
"- All geologic evidence proves that modern day humans did exist hundreds of thousands of years ago. So even if your little flood myth is true God definitely murdered millions of people whether they were innocent or not, and yeah I'm not buying that most of them weren't innocent."
Non sequitur, and Reading Disability Alert: Part II. The context here is what happened according to the Bible. What you think happened in reality is irrelevant.
"- You never answered my question since it's OK to drown Nephilim is it OK to take a litter of kittens and drown them in the bathtub?"
This has nothing to do with the question of genocide, so it's another non sequitur from you.
"No you said that Nephilim were the offspring of humans and angels therefore they must be able to breed together."
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
"Strawman, I never asserted I didn't know how sex worked"
Yes, you did. You asked, "How do humans and angels have sex?"
"you moron"
Comical Irony Alert
"you can't produce fertile offspring by having sex with a horse"
You can't produce any offspring at all that way, numbnuts, fertile or otherwise. That's because humans aren't anywhere near close enough genetically to a horse. Donkeys are though, which results in hybrid offspring known as a mule.
"so therefore it's perfectly logical that you'd need an explanation how an angel and a human can have sex to produce fertile offspring."
Who said the Nephilim were fertile? Not that it matters, but sometimes hybrids are fertile and sometimes they aren't, and sometimes only female hybrids are fertile, and sometimes hybrids that usually aren't fertile, are fertile. For example, there have been a few dozen fertile mules documented throughout history.
"So if you concede modern day humans did exist back then then your entire premise falls flat on its stupid face"
Reading Disability Alert: Part III
There's nothing to concede because I indicated in my very first post that modern humans existed back then. I said:
"Noah and his family were the only humans left on Earth at the time, which is why the Bible says that Noah was "perfect in his generations""
Noah and his family were obviously modern humans. Also, and once again, "modern" or "not modern" has nothing to do with anything. The Nephilim were non-humans because they were hybrids, not because they were "modern" or "not modern."
"Or are you trying to assert that the only modern day humans were on that boat? Well that also falls flat on its stupid face because all demographic studies show that the human population was in the millions 4 thousand years ago. (and no this is not a non sequitur, you've made a baseless assertion and I'm proving to you that it's garbage.)"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Also why exactly is someone's life not worth as much if they aren't humans? I guess again you have no problem with drowning kittens in a bathtub and this has to be the 4th time I have asked you to address this point. Let's assume that I grant you every premise that you've put forth, he still killed billions of organisms and you will never convince me they all deserved it. If they did all deserve it I'd like to know what every single organism did that they deserved to die a horrible horrible death."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Finally quit using the term non sequitur, you don't know what it means, you aren't using it properly"
A non sequitur is anything that doesn't logically follow that which preceded it. For example, since I always use the term non sequitur properly, your asinine "you don't know what it means, you aren't using it properly" assertion doesn't logically follow from anything I've typed, and as such, it's a non sequitur. Consider it dismissed out of hand.
"and it's making you look like a bigger dumbass than you have to."
Comical Irony Alert: Part II
By the way, I'm not going to humor you and your reading-disability-and-stupidity-fueled non sequiturs anymore. From now on I'm only going to specifically address the parts of your post that aren't non sequiturs. If your entire post consist of nothing but non sequiturs (which is likely), I'll simply point out that your whole post is a non sequitur, rather than repeating things which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of penetrating your drop forged, heat treated, tempered forehead.
The fact that you refuse to address 80% of my points just goes to show you don't have a logical response and no they were not "non sequiturs" you don't even know what that is. I'll just assume all the responses where you said "non sequitur" you don't have an intelligent response to so we'll just lay those to rest.
You tried to assert that I didn't know how reproduction happened and that was not what my point was based on. You said that an angel and a human could have sex to make offspring and I asked how that was possible since a human and a horse can't reproduce to make offspring. They aren't the same organism so how does that work?
"You can't produce any offspring at all that way, numbnuts, fertile or otherwise. That's because humans aren't anywhere near close enough genetically to a horse. Donkeys are though, which results in hybrid offspring known as a mule."
So how do you know the genetic makeup of an angel? Since you just brought up the concept of genetic makeup this is now a fair question so don't bother citing your non sequitur cop out.
"There's nothing to concede because I indicated in my very first post that modern humans existed back then. I said:
"Noah and his family were the only humans left on Earth at the time, which is why the Bible says that Noah was "perfect in his generations"""
Then therefore it's pointless to bring up the concept of Nephilin and that has now been rendered a non sequitur. Do you understand why or do I have to spoonfeed this to you? I have a feeling that you've been kicked in the helmet a few too many times so I may have to spoonfeed this.
"A non sequitur is anything that doesn't logically follow that which preceded it. For example, since I always use the term non sequitur properly, your asinine "you don't know what it means, you aren't using it properly" assertion doesn't logically follow from anything I've typed, and as such, it's a non sequitur. Consider it dismissed out of hand."
You've not used it properly once in all of your posts of babbling nonsense. But that's probably because you're incapable of following a simple discussion. Again someone needs to put more padding in your helment.
"From now on I'm only going to specifically address the parts of your post that aren't non sequiturs. If your entire post consist of nothing but non sequiturs (which is likely)"
Translation: If I can't provide anything resembling an intelligent response I'm just going to say "non sequitur" as a cop out because I'm a coward.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/international-programs/historical-est-worldpop.html
2000 BC - worlds population was 27 million. Nice try helmeted dumbass. Until you can demonstrate that I have a reason to believe you over a well researched population study your pathetic excuse of an argument doesn't have a leg to stand on and your God is a genocidal monster.
Predicted Response: "Non-sequitur" (Translation: I don't have an intelligent response and I think that if I keep saying "non-sequitur" I can salvage some of my dignity while putting forth the impression that I'm anything more than an incompetent imbecile)
"2000 BC - worlds population was 27 million."
This is about what happened according to the Bible, moron. It is not about what happened according to mainstream historians, scientists, etc. You've already accepted this context when you declared that God committed genocide via the flood. You can't then switch to a completely different context and claim that, e.g., none of it ever happened. This is like if we were arguing over who shot first in Star Wars, Han Solo or Greedo, and then you started arguing that there's no scientific evidence that Tatooine even exists.
You + an idiot = 2 idiots.
"Nice try helmeted dumbass."
Comical Irony Alert: Part IV
"Until you can demonstrate that I have a reason to believe you over a well researched population study your pathetic excuse of an argument doesn't have a leg to stand on and your God is a genocidal monster."
See above, road apple.
SHOW ME THE BIBLE VERSE THAT SAYS ALL HUMANS WERE ON NOAH'S BOAT!!!
All you've shown me is that Noah was perfect in his generations which says nothing about the organisms that were drowned in the flood.
This has to be the 50th time I have asked you to address this and you dodge every time.
BTW even after you demonstrate that you still have to demonstrate how it was moral to murder billions of living things (many of which according to you are very close genetically to humans and could even reproduce with humans)
Also I have debated many creationists and none of them have ever said anything as moronic as you have so it's clear creationists can't even keep their assertions straight.
You + 1 kid with autism = 1 deluded retard
"SHOW ME THE BIBLE VERSE THAT SAYS ALL HUMANS WERE ON NOAH'S BOAT!!!
All you've shown me is that Noah was perfect in his generations which says nothing about the organisms that were drowned in the flood.
This has to be the 50th time I have asked you to address this and you dodge every time. "
I already posted Genesis 6:4, dumbass.
"BTW even after you demonstrate that you still have to demonstrate how it was moral to murder billions of living things (many of which according to you are very close genetically to humans and could even reproduce with humans)"
I don't have to demonstrate any such thing, simpleton. Not human = not genocide, period.
"Also I have debated many creationists and none of them have ever said anything as moronic as you have so it's clear creationists can't even keep their assertions straight."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"You + 1 kid with autism = 1 deluded retard"
Monkey see, monkey do.
You posted the following:
"Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God."
Noah was "perfect in his generations," which means that there were no angels and/or Nephilim in his ancestry, i.e., he was human.
That says NOTHING about the remainder of the world population, all you've asserted is that he had no Nephilim in his ancestry and BTW this is really starting to sound like some form of racial supremacy very similar to Nazi ideology, just saying.
"I don't have to demonstrate any such thing, simpleton. Not human = not genocide, period."
You are a f-cking idiot. Yes you do have to demonstrate such thing because according to you Nephilim aren't human, OK even if I accept that you now have to prove there were no non-Nephilim humans on the planet when this alleged flood happened. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? DO I NEED TO MAKE THIS EASIER FOR YOU???
- According to you: Murdering Nephilim isn't genocide
- In order for that assertion to carry any weight you have to prove that only Nephilim were killed. (and we will get into the moral argument of killing those without the genetic traits your God considered superior later) Noah's ancestry is 100% irrelevant here, I'm talking about the ancestry of every other organism on the planet.
"Also I have debated many creationists and none of them have ever said anything as moronic as you have so it's clear creationists can't even keep their assertions straight."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
Glad you concede that creationists can't keep their stories straight.
BTW assuming you dig yourself out of this hole I post a link of about 50 other holes you have to dig your way out of.
Also glad you see yourself as a deluded retard, you are now making progress.
By the way are you trolling me? If so you had me going for a little bit so congrats for keeping it up as long as you did. If not then I weep for humanity.
share"That says NOTHING about the remainder of the world population, all you've asserted is that he had no Nephilim in his ancestry"
Why would Noah being human (perfect in his generations) even be mentioned if that wasn't unique to him and his family, and the key to why he was saved from the flood? And why do you think the first 4 verses of the flood story (Genesis 6:1 to 6:4) are about the giants/Nephilim? You obviously can't follow a simple story.
"and BTW this is really starting to sound like some form of racial supremacy very similar to Nazi ideology, just saying."
Is that a joke? Nephilim weren't human; their fathers (angels) weren't even from Earth. "Racism" only applies to humans. If you're not a fan of some human/alien hybrid species that's killing and eating humans, that's not racism, obviously.
The rest of your post consists of several instances of comical irony and non sequiturs. Consider it dismissed out of hand.
"Why would Noah being human (perfect in his generations) even be mentioned if that wasn't unique to him and his family, and the key to why he was saved from the flood? And why do you think the first 4 verses of the flood story (Genesis 6:1 to 6:4) are about the giants/Nephilim? You obviously can't follow a simple story."
Argument from ignorance
"The rest of your post consists of several instances of comical irony and non sequiturs. Consider it dismissed out of hand."
Glad to see you've conceded
"Is that a joke? Nephilim weren't human; their fathers (angels) weren't even from Earth. "Racism" only applies to humans. If you're not a fan of some human/alien hybrid species that's killing and eating humans, that's not racism, obviously."
From what you've described they are very similar to humans and even some humans had Nephilim DNA in them. ("Noah was "perfect in his generations," which means that there were no angels and/or Nephilim in his ancestry, i.e., he was human.") If some humans were not worthy of being saved from your God's genocidal torment because they had "Nephilim" in their ancestry then yes that sounds very similar to Nazi ideology.
"Argument from ignorance"
Your laughable attempt to redefine the term "argument from ignorance" is dismissed.
"Glad to see you've conceded"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"From what you've described they are very similar to humans and even some humans had Nephilim DNA in them."
Any creature with angel and/or Nephilim DNA in them was not human, by definition. In other words, "some humans had Nephilim DNA in them" is a contradictions of terms, since the presence of Nephilim DNA defines them as non-human to begin with.
"If some humans were not worthy of being saved from your God's genocidal torment because they had "Nephilim" in their ancestry then yes that sounds very similar to Nazi ideology."
Again, having angels and/or Nephilim in their ancestry defines them as not human.
Can a human have sex with a Nephilim and produce a child?
"Can a human have sex with a Nephilim and produce a child?"
I don't know. Even if it were biologically possible, it still probably wouldn't happen because the Nephilim were giants, plus they viewed humans as food, not mates.
Then maybe you should go do some more research instead of wasting my time. Clearly you don’t know a whole lot about this
share"Then maybe you should go do some more research instead of wasting my time."
The Bible doesn't say either way, dumbass, nor does the answer to your question matter. Nephilim weren't humans, therefore, no matter how many of them you kill, by definition, it isn't genocide. The term "genocide" only applies to the killing of humans.
"Clearly you don’t know a whole lot about this"
Comical Irony Alert, and also, LOL at you.
Tell you what, lay off the childish insults , go do some research and come back when you actually know what you’re talking about because if the atheist is having to school you on your own Bible then that’s pathetic
share"If you don’t know then you’re in no position to label them not human"
Again, you're a moron. Not knowing whether or not Nephilims can breed with humans (because the Bible doesn't say either way) has nothing to do with knowing that they are not human. They are not human because they are hybrids, and whether or not they can breed with humans doesn't change the fact that they are hybrids. Your own question already treats their non-human status as a given, even though you're too stupid to realize it. If you think they're human then that means you asked me:
"Can a human have sex with a human and produce a child?"
In which case I'll suggest again that you ask your parents to tell you about the birds and the bees.
"you fucktard. "
Comical Irony Alert from the well-established idiot.
"Tell you what, lay off the childish insults , go do some research and come back when you actually know what you’re talking about because if the atheist is having to school you on your own Bible then that’s pathetic "
Your non sequitur is dismissed, dipshit. Also, how's the weather out there tonight, in deep, deep left field? You know jack shit about the Bible, and the idea of a buffoon like you "schooling" anyone on anything at all is laughable.
Uh actually it has everything to do with it. If they could breed with humans to produce fertile offspring then they’d be considered in the same species as us and therefore humans but since you don’t know this you can’t possibly label them non human you fucking idiot. Furthermore if they could breed with humans (which you don't know either way) and they were considered non-human and therefore it was OK to slaughter them that is the equivalent of us today determining that certain people with certain traits (little people (you'd probably just refer to them as dwarves), black people, people with mental disabilities like yourself, etc.) are not human either and it's therefore OK to kill them. Since you don't know if humans and Nephilim could reproduce then you cannot say that those two scenarios are not comparable and that ideology is pretty much the same as that of a Nazi/White Supremacist. And for the record whether Nephilim were human or not (well I don't even believe they existed nor is there any evidence for them but that's another matter), it's pretty much irrelevant by this point because you cannot prove that all the people on Earth were on that little boat of yours so really your entire argument has become as you would put it a non sequitur.
Strawman. I asked can a human have sex with a Nephillim (which you don’t even know by your own admission so it sounds like you need to have that talk with your parents) , learn to read you retard. Let me give you some advice: lay off the religion it’s turning you into a clueless imbecile
"Uh actually it has everything to do with it. If they could breed with humans to produce fertile offspring then they’d be considered in the same species as us and therefore humans"
That's not how it works, dipshit, and you fail Biology 101 forever. There are plenty of examples of fertile hybrids, and I've already pointed this out quite a few posts ago when I said:
"Not that it matters, but sometimes hybrids are fertile and sometimes they aren't, and sometimes only female hybrids are fertile, and sometimes hybrids that usually aren't fertile, are fertile. For example, there have been a few dozen fertile mules documented throughout history."
"Leopons" are an example of a fertile hybrid. A leopon is neither a leopard nor a lion, just as a Nephilim is neither a human nor an angel. Humans are not hybrids, by definition, therefore a hybrid can't possibly be human, by definition. This isn't rocket science, moron, yet it confuses the hell out of you.
"but since you don’t know this you can’t possibly label them non human you fucking idiot."
LOL! This post is the funniest example of irony from you yet, and that's saying quite a bit. You don't have the faintest clue about what you're talking about.
The rest of your asinine post is negated by your false premise; consider it dismissed out of hand. You and a fool are alike.
More non sequitur from a deluded retarded theist. (Also do some research on leopons because you clearly lack even the basic understanding) Did you just not read or are you incapable of reading the part where I said none of this even matters until you prove that all of the humans on earth were on your little boat. Right now you’re trying to argue step 12 when you’ve not even made it past step 1. Clearly you failed basic reading comprehension 101
share"More non sequitur"
Money see, monkey do.
"from a deluded retarded theist."
Comical Irony Alert: Part XIX
"(Also do some research on leopons because you clearly lack even the basic understanding)"
Yet another non sequitur from the well-established idiot. A leopon is a hybrid that has a leopard (species = panthera pardus) for a father and a lion (species = Panthera leo) for a mother. Leopons are fertile. In fact, leopons have even been known to breed with another type of hybrid known as a "liguar" (lion/jaguar hybrid) which results in a "leopliguar":
"The male leopon is a fertile offspring of a male leopard and a female lion. The fertile female liguar, offspring of a male lion and female jaguar, is capable of fertilization by a leopon. Their mating, though rare, results in a leopliguar."
Remember when you said...
"If they could breed with humans to produce fertile offspring then they’d be considered in the same species as us and therefore humans"
...? LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.
"Did you just not read or are you incapable of reading the part where I said none of this even matters until you prove that all of the humans on earth were on your little boat."
If you can't follow the Bible story that's your problem, numbnuts. The story starts by telling us about giants (Nephilim) and where they came from (offspring of angel fathers and a human mothers). Then the story tells up that Noah is fully human (perfect in his generations), and he and his family are the ones that will be saved from the flood, which leaves the giants to be destroyed by the flood, obviously.
"Right now you’re trying to argue step 12 when you’ve not even made it past step 1. Clearly you failed basic reading comprehension 101"
Comical Irony Alert: Part XX, and also, yet another non sequitur from the registered idiot. Consider it dismissed out of hand, clodpate.
Another non-sequitur, your point is dismissed and do some more research on leopons and you'll see why your point is fallacious and we'll get to this after you make it through Step 1 which so far you've done a shit job of proving. (FYI what you're saying is nothing new, this in old, debunked creationist talking point that you probably are parroting back from Ken Ham or Eric Hovind)
share"If you can't follow the Bible story that's your problem, numbnuts. The story starts by telling us about giants (Nephilim) and where they came from (offspring of angel fathers and a human mothers). Then the story tells up that Noah is fully human (perfect in his generations), and he and his family are the ones that will be saved from the flood, which leaves the giants to be destroyed by the flood, obviously."
This says absolutely NOTHING about Noah and his family being the only humans on Earth at the time therefore all of the humans on Earth being on the ark you stupid dipshit. Until you can provide evidence that no humans were left on the planet during the flood then any other point you make is a irrelevant. All discussions relating to any other topic means nothing until you can demonstrate this. All you've provided are you own assumptions and your appeals to your own ignorance.
This has to be the 80th time I have told you this, how else can I spoonfeed this so your retarded brain can understand???? Appealing to your own stupidity is not going to prove anything.
Crickets????? If you can't even demonstrate the NO HUMANS were left off the boat then we're done because it would be pointless to continue because that means you can't demonstrate that God didn't kill any humans and that means you're in no position to assert he didn't commit genocide by your own definitions.
shareLOL at you replying 3 times to one post. Also, LOL at you in general.
"Another non-sequitur, your point is dismissed and do some more research on leopons and you'll see why your point is fallacious and we'll get to this after you make it through Step 1 which so far you've done a shit job of proving."
That's not an argument, dipshit. Your asinine assertion ("If they could breed with humans to produce fertile offspring then they’d be considered in the same species as us") has been proven wrong, given that plenty of hybrids are fertile, leopons being just one of many examples. That's a fact, and facts aren't debatable. Since you have no argument, your tacit concession on the matter is noted.
The rest of your posts consist of non sequiturs along with you demonstrating that you can't follow a simple story unless the author spoonfeeds every last detail to you (and even then you'd likely be stumped, considering your IQ of about 78). You can consider all of your foolishness dismissed out of hand.
Also, since you've already conceded that only Nephilim and critters were killed in the flood when you said, "Doesn’t matter it’s still evil," you are done here; you've been done since your first reply.
Never once did I concede that only Nephilim were killed in the flood, I asked you to prove that no humans were killed in the flood you retarded strawman. And you've failed miserably because you're too stupid to understand how to follow a simple discussion.
First show me where it says no humans were killed in the flood and then we'll move on to the hybridization topic (which by the way even if I concede that one all you've done is defend yourself, you still would not have made an inch of progress in your poorly thought out and pathetic excuse of an argument). I asked you to do this on the other thread and you couldn't so you lost that round. Also since you bring up IQ I have a feeling yours would make really good golf score.
This is your last shot: SHOW ME PROOF THAT NO HUMANS WERE LEFT ON EARTH AND NOT ON THE BOAT. If you can't do this then:
- You are in no position to assert that only Nephilim were left behind
- Therefore you are in no position to assert that God didn't kill any humans
- Therefore you are in no position to assert that God didn't commit genocide
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR DO I NEED TO ADAPT MY INSTRUCTION FOR THOSE WITH SEVERE READING COMPREHENSION DISORDERS?????
The rest of your post is either strawmans or childish insults which my time is far to valuable to lower myself to that level you have chosen to degrade yourself to.
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareGlad that wraps it up, you can't demonstrate the basic premise of your argument. Later dickhead.
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareLater Dickhead. Come back when you can actually demonstrate your argument
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareFor all future comments that don't involve you demonstrating your pathetic excuse of an argument just consider yourself redirected to the following statement: "Later dickhead"
share"just consider yourself redirected"
Monkey see, monkey do, part IV.
Also, your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
Redirected dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareSee above message
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead
See above message
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareThis post and all future posts not pertaining to the essential questions I posed to you are redirected.
shareDickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead as is every future post you make of the same cowardly, nonsensical subject matter
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRedirected dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRepeated
Redirect dickhead
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareRepeated redirect dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll further posts not advancing you getting beyond even the basic premise of your argument are redirected. Dickhead
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareAll
Further posts not addressing the basic premise of your poorly thought out argument are redirected shit for brains
Also FYI: 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all MANKIND. (Genesis 6:9-9:17)
FYI: From the book of Genesis: 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[e][f] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all MANKIND. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
shareAlso in case you want the King James Version: 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every MAN:
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your concession remains noted.
shareHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OK now you're done, you were just disproven and all you can throw back is your dumbass "nonsequitur" BS. Later shit for brains.
shareNo, dumbass. The bible always refers to the giants/Nephilim as "men," including in a verse that I've already referenced:
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Regardless of that, they were human/angel hybrids, which means they weren't human, by definition.
Again, your concession remains noted.
So we shouldn't believe the bible when it refers to them as men? (whether they would have fit the scientific definition of homo sapiens is a non sequitur, by creationist logic God and the bible overrule science) I thought the bible was the ultimate authority? I guess it's convenient to just throw out the verses that don't support your narrative you gutless hypocrite. Get your stories straight shit for brains.
Also nothing in that passage said that they weren't human you f-cking idiot, however my passage says that humans were drowned in the flood.
FYI the google definition of "man":
man
/man/
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
SportMilitaryPoliceGames
noun
1.
an adult HUMAN male.
"a small man with mischievous eyes"
Wikipedia also supports this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man
So are the bible, google and wikipedia all wrong? Why should I believe you?
So as things stand;
1) I have a passage that says that men were drowned in the flood
2) you have a passage that doesn't say that they weren't men nor that there weren't actual men left on Earth.
3) Whether Nephilim were human or not is a non sequitur, the bible says that all men (which you have no justification to assert that it didn't include non-nephilim, however I do have a justification to assert that it did include actual humans (millions of them based on demographic studies)) were killed.
You're done dumbass.
The very verse that tells you that the giants are the offspring of human mothers and angel fathers, also calls them "men." The offspring of a human and a non-human is not a human, it's a hybrid. That's a biological fact, and the Bible calling them "men" doesn't change that biological fact. Our definitions are based on our reality, which doesn't include any intelligent species other than humans. If humanoid hybrids existed that were as intelligent as humans, and could talk like humans, we'd probably call them men and women too.
Also, you and a fool are alike.
Oh so now you're appealing to science when it suits your agenda you gutless hypocrite. Funny how when I appealed to science earlier to show that the human population was in the millions around the time when this alleged flood was supposed to take place you pulled out your "non sequitur" BS. You creationists are all the same, you only count the evidence that you like.
Regardless it's irrelevant, according to your own bible your God referred to them as "men" and I provided the definition of a "man" and it specifically said "male human"
So now you have two options. Either:
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
or
B) They were human
Either way you're done you pathetic simpleton and the God you worship is a mass murdering psychopath who has a higher body count than Adolf Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Vlad the Impaler, Rambo and The Terminator combined.
"Oh so now you're appealing to science when it suits your agenda"
This is about what happened in the story, dipshit, and in the story, the giants have human mothers and angel fathers. That makes them hybrids, not human, by definition.
"Funny how when I appealed to science earlier to show that the human population was in the millions around the time when this alleged flood was supposed to take place you pulled out your "non sequitur" BS."
Because that's not part of the story, moron.
"You creationists are all the same, you only count the evidence that you like."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, simpleton.
"Regardless it's irrelevant, according to your own bible your God referred to them as "men" and I provided the definition of a "man" and it specifically said "male human""
It didn't only call them men, numbnuts, it actually told what their origins were, i.e., they are the offspring of human mothers and angel fathers, which is why they are giants (humans aren't giants, obviously). Calling a hybrid a "man" doesn't magically transform it into a human.
"So now you have two options. Either:
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
or
B) They were human"
Whether or not the Bible is the word of God is utterly irrelavant, clodpate. The only thing that's relevant is what happened in the story.
"Either way you're done you pathetic simpleton and the God you worship is a mass murdering psychopath who has a higher body count than Adolf Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Vlad the Impaler, Rambo and The Terminator combined."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, dullard.
I am talking about what happened in the story, in the story God not only declared them human but he also drowned all “MAN” aside from Noah and his family in this alleged flood, you’re the one trying to deflect to science whenever it suits you.
Whether they fit the scientific definition of a human isn’t part of the story you retarded dickhead.
“Whether or not the Bible is the word of God is utterly irrelavant,”
First of all it’s “Irrelevant”, secondly it does matter because the bible (which I thought was the ultimate authority) not only refers to them as “men” but also says that all “MAN” was drowned in the flood, and the only way you can get around this is by admitting the bible isn’t the word of God.
so I will ask again which of the following are you going with:
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
OR
B) They were human and God murdered millions of people.
You’re done shit for brains
"in the story God not only declared them human"
No, he didn't, dumbass. If someone told you a story about e.g., Hercules, including his origins (human mother, non-human father), and referred to him as a strong man, would you take that as them declaring him to be human? If so, you clearly know nothing about how people tend to use vernacular, and you probably have Asperger's syndrome. Also, what someone is called doesn't change what they actually are. The Bible tells what the giants actually were (human/angel hybrids), and a hybrid is not human, period.
"but he also drowned all “MAN” aside from Noah and his family in this alleged flood, you’re the one trying to deflect to science whenever it suits you.
Whether they fit the scientific definition of a human isn’t part of the story"
Who said anything about "the scientific definition of a human," moron? People have known that hybrids aren't the same thing as either of their parents for ages; long before modern science existed. Do you think that society has ever thought that, e.g., a mule was the exact same type of animal as a horse? Obviously not.
"you retarded dickhead."
More comical irony from the well-established idiot.
"First of all it’s “Irrelevant”"
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
"secondly it does matter because the bible (which I thought was the ultimate authority) not only refers to them as “men” but also says that all “MAN” was drowned in the flood, and the only way you can get around this is by admitting the bible isn’t the word of God.
so I will ask again which of the following are you going with:
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
OR
B) They were human and God murdered millions of people."
Again, dipshit, whether or not the Bible is the word of God is utterly irrelevant, because authorship of the story has nothing to do with what happened in the flood story.
"You’re done shit for brains"
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXVII. Also, your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug.
He absolutely did and he said that all “MAN” was drowned in the flood aside from Noah and his family, nothing you have provided even remotely suggests there were no humans left on Earth. Why shouldn’t I take the bible at it’s word? Typical creationist, it is the word of God until it doesn’t suit your poorly thought out agenda. You did appeal to the “scientific definition of a human” when you labeled them "hybrids". Whether they were hybrids or not should be irrelevant (see how easy it was to spell that correctly?), the bible referred to them as "men" and that should override whether they were hybrids or not considering you think the bible is the ultimate authority and the word of God.
So I will ask again, which of the following are you going with?
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
OR
B) They were human and God murdered millions of people.
You now have 2 more chances to answer this question
I really really really hate your parents, clearly they kicked you in the helmet way too much as a child for their own amusement, sure I probably would have gotten a kick out of it (no pun intended) but now you’re societies problem.
"He absolutely did and he said that all “MAN” was drowned in the flood aside from Noah and his family, nothing you have provided even remotely suggests there were no humans left on Earth."
Already addressed (many times), therefore dismissed.
"Why shouldn’t I take the bible at it’s word?"
The term you're looking for is "its," not "it's," which is a contraction of "it is."
"Typical creationist, it is the word of God until it doesn’t suit your poorly thought out agenda."
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo.
"You did appeal to the “scientific definition of a human” when you labeled them "hybrids"."
False. A hybrid is simply the offspring of two different types of organisms. They've been known about for thousands of years before modern science existed. A being has to have a human father and a human mother in order to be human, obviously.
"Whether they were hybrids or not should be irrelevant"
You're an idiot. Whether or not they were hybrids is the only thing that's relevant, since the point of contention is your assertion that the flood constituted "genocide." It can only be genocide if a vast number of humans were killed, and hybrids are not humans.
"(see how easy it was to spell that correctly?)"
I spelled it correctly before you did, simpleton. I was the first person to type the word "irrelevant" in this thread - https://i.imgur.com/d4cB4jX.png.
You're obviously ignorant to the concept of a "typo." Anyone with an IQ of at least 78 can scroll up and see that I've spelled the word "irrelevant" (and its root word "relevant") correctly the first time I typed it and several times after that, which makes it obvious that I know how to spell it.
"the bible referred to them as "men" and that should override whether they were hybrids or not considering you think the bible is the ultimate authority and the word of God."
I never said any such thing, moron. Plus, it doesn't matter either way if the author of those Bible verses considered them to be human, because said author already established that they were hybrids, which means that killing them doesn't fit the definition of genocide.
"So I will ask again, which of the following are you going with?
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
OR
B) They were human and God murdered millions of people."
It doesn't matter either way, road apple, as I've already told you more than once. The story says what it says regardless of whose word it is.
"I really really really hate your parents, clearly they kicked you in the helmet way too much as a child for their own amusement, sure I probably would have gotten a kick out of it (no pun intended) but now you’re societies problem."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, dolt, and also:
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXVIII
This is your last chance dipshit. Which is it?
A) The bible is NOT the word of God
OR
B) They were human and God murdered millions of people.
The fact that you are too retarded to realize the corner you've boxed yourself into is no ones fault but yours.
"A) The bible is NOT the word of God
OR
B) They were human and God murdered millions of people."
"A" is irrelevant to the point of contention and "B" is false according to the story, though neither of those facts will ever penetrate your drop-forged, heat-treated, oil-quenched, tempered, high-carbon, sloping forehead.
Since you presented no arguments (your next paragraph is a non sequitur and another Comical Irony Alert, neither of which constitute an argument of any kind), your tacit concession is noted yet again.
You're done shit for brains
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou're done
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou're done shit for brains
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou're done shit for brains
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou're done shit for brains
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou're done shit for brains
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareAnswer my question, don't deflect or you're done shit for brains. The fact that you're too stupid and deluded to understand the corner you've boxed yourself into is no one's fault but yours.
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou're done shit for brains. The fact that you're too stupid and deluded to understand the corner you've boxed yourself into is no one's fault but yours.
share