what's the deal with CONVERSION?

[___]

Yeah I thought about that loophole, but Biblical literalism also dictates that there was a flood some time after creation that sort of wipes the slate clean too, which, even if you ignore all the other problems that creates, still leaves the issue that whatever God did to the world in the first place got washed away. Then of course you can say, hey, God must have gone and fixed the place up after the flood was done with because he really, really wanted to fool us into thinking the guys who came along thousands of years later and wrote the Bible were liars (or to convince us that they were mistaken when they weren't). After a little while following that train of thought though I hope it's obvious why the rest of us find these ideas a little hard to believe at best.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Yeah I thought about that loophole, but Biblical literalism also dictates that there was a flood some time after creation that sort of wipes the slate clean too, which, even if you ignore all the other problems that creates, still leaves the issue that whatever God did to the world in the first place got washed away. Then of course you can say, hey, God must have gone and fixed the place up after the flood was done with because he really, really wanted to fool us into thinking the guys who came along thousands of years later and wrote the Bible were liars (or to convince us that they were mistaken when they weren't). After a little while following that train of thought though I hope it's obvious why the rest of us find these ideas a little hard to believe at best.

I'm pretty sure the flood wasn't to wipe the whole of creation clean. I believe it was actually to eradicate the portion of mankind that had become evil and corrupted, and to restore the world to the way it once was. That's why He had the animals saved. Otherwise, He probably would have just created everything anew, instead of saving the animals.

 

[___]

Well, it was supposed to have covered the whole earth and to have wiped out all evidence of preceding human civilization, changed the course of rivers and the shape of the landscape to the point that on emerging Noah and his family didn't recognize anything, and wiped out all land animals and vegetation - even after they landed on Mt. Arrarat they had to pass quite a bit of time before the land dried out and enough plants grew to sustain the animals. You'd have to conclude from destruction of that sort the more subtle evidence of the passage of time would be largely destroyed, throwing askew measurements like the age of of a given geological feature based on erosion patterns (not to mention the stunning amount of evidence such an event would leave behind which is totally absent, but that's another argument).

 

[Glitchfinder]

Well, it was supposed to have covered the whole earth and to have wiped out all evidence of preceding human civilization, changed the course of rivers and the shape of the landscape to the point that on emerging Noah and his family didn't recognize anything, and wiped out all land animals and vegetation - even after they landed on Mt. Arrarat they had to pass quite a bit of time before the land dried out and enough plants grew to sustain the animals. You'd have to conclude from destruction of that sort the more subtle evidence of the passage of time would be largely destroyed, throwing askew measurements like the age of of a given geological feature based on erosion patterns (not to mention the stunning amount of evidence such an event would leave behind which is totally absent, but that's another argument).

Actually, there is intriguing evidence that the basin that the Mediterranean is in has actually drained and refilled several times, and that the most recent refilling of the basin was actually around the time period that the flood took place. (And that this refilling was actually rather cataclysmic. Let's just say that the Staright of Gibralter opened up for some reason, allowing the ocean in.) Some of the evidence they see is the fact that pretty much every river leading into the basin has a submerged canyon leading deep into the sea (Although some have filled in over time), as well as the lowest areas of the seafloor there showing evidence of having been salt flats at one point. Some scientists have claimed that this could actually be the great flood mentioned in the Bible.

 

[___]

Yeah, I am prone to believe that, or else a similar theory involving the Black Sea, could be the root of the common flood myths. Another theory places the origin of the myth in Babylon, citing the similarities between Gilgamesh and the flood myth in Genesis and proposes that it was a river flood that happened some time in that period. You can follow that rabbit trail if you want, and I think the History Channel did a documentary on it recently as well. There's almost definitely some truth to the story, but there is no strong evidence to support the global flood most Jewish & Christian fundamentalists believe in. It may have seemed global in scale to the people it happened to of course, especially if it involved flooding a dry Mediterranean or Black Sea :D

 

[Necro_100000]

Bible use to be about women... Good thing the church shot that one down AM I RIGHT guys? Rrrr JK... Women's Right's FTW  :angel: (Don't hurt me)

Anyway people like to convert other people for 2 main reasons.

Almost no one likes to go it alone and as they say "Misery loves Company." so people fell that if they don't like it they don't think you should like it. ("Come on guy's! Let's go jump on the bandwagon!")

And everyone loves to be the "Norm" that's why ---- like to make other ---- do/become ----. (It's a madlib plug things in!)

Eh, that's just my opinion though.

-Matt (Necro)

Stop leaving such spammy replies. ~Mega Lenin