Posted by Utahraptor on 12 February 1999 at 09:06:52:

In Reply to: Okay posted by The Imp on 12 February 1999 at 01:57:18:

: Though I'm not sure I am totally done degrading you, here it goes. There is a school of thought out there that says that the bible should not be taken as a literal history. Rather it uses metaphors for teaching. Maybe that school of thought is on to something.... The ark question..... hmmmmm... Okay assume God is really powerful, not all powerful, but real damn close. Is it possible that God created a temporary rift in Space/Time, centered in the ark, there by making it possible to fit all the animals in there? As for all the shit clean up, I thought Noah had a pretty big family... The ark didn't require any sailors if I remember correctly, so they would have had time to do it. I'll grant that it would have been hard, but possible. Another plausible theory could be that God in his/her near infinate power just stopped some biological needs for awhile, Food intake and excrement might have been a couple that got froze.

: Please keep in mind that those are only theories I've heard.... Not what I believe. In fact, I don't subscribe to Christianity, Hebrew, or any other religious affiliation. I go my own demented way.....
Now this is what I wanted. Expalnations. Yes an all powerful God cna just say, ALl abaord, and lo and behold, plenty fo elg room for oen and all. BUt that's not proof for this thigns happening. So saying GOd altered sapce is good. Liek Dr. Who's TARDIS. WHat about shrinking? Surely God can do that? And suspending bilogicla functions would guarnatee survival for ove r amonth with no food water, and no waste. IT keeps tress and fishes alive. Ditto with tiem travel. God sends them forward in tiem. Believabel, maybe not. BUt at leats it attemmpts to expalin how relaity is altered.
TEchncially, I'm a freee lancer rigilious dude basing stuff of the Jewsih faith, with extra stuff from all around thrown in. And I don't care if I'm right or not. I try for believable thigns in reality. What we're told make snos ens egiven what we now know. BUt it coudl ahev ahppened. JSut nto s we were told. Couldn't God have saved many fols, and given them their wona rks? And sicne God liked Noah best, coudl eh not say, 'YOu may all live, but only Noah shall be credite dwiht beign good,a nd surviving. You amy nto tell your family or otehrs the truth EVER!" Sur eHE coudl of. Did HE? WHo knwos? I'm here for some explanations, not the real answer.

: As for your dog/god observation, G O D is not the original spelling I'm sure as the oldest bibles seem to be in Hebrew. Don't you think that maybe the spelling is merely a coincidence, and one that occurs only in English. Universally, in all languages you wouldn't get the same results.... so coincidence.

: As for D E V I L, see that last bit...

DOesn't matetr origin of names, or what langauge it's in. Point is, peopel who love GOD and hate the Devil seem perectly fine with those names. Sure it might ahve been a coincidence. Buts urely i'm ntot eh first to see this? Even if others did, surely they weren't years afetr the anems wee permanent. MAybe dogs were nbamed backwards of God cause God is our provider,a dn dogs are man's bets friends. But who knwos? That's why I ask, tog et soem theories thrown out. And especially to encourage thinking, nto just blindly aceptng what our reliigous eladers tell us. Seems my mistake came from that. I actaulylt ried to make beings with no brians, and who therefore can't think, actualyl try to think. After confusingthem and hurting their ehads, I really shoudl ahve expected as much form them as I got. Well, from Wyvern. MR. MEsp/Scratchiepoo was totally off base deceiding that he didn't liek how a resposne wa sgiven,a nd decided to throw it back in their face. IF he didn;t like my original psot, he coudl have repleid to it and told em so. Isneatd, he accepted it, hated Wyvern's psot,t hen got mixed up and thought what I di was wrong,a nd decided to take action, getting amd at em for doing what eh did, replying in kind. Vryr weird. Very stoopid.

: Now for your questioning of truths, I've hit this one already, but here it is again because you might have missed it. Your questioning was styled more like a bunch of cheap shots. Had you stuck with a logical arguement, none of the heated response would have happened. Instead you took off into denoucing the intelligence of any opposed to your disbelief right in your first post. The implication in your writing is what was attacked by wyvern, not your disbelief. Are you with me so far? I'm giving you some facts on how your post sounded to other people. It doesn't matter that you made your claim of ''no offense'' when you so strongly presented quite the opposite.
Actaully, they took it all wrong. Tehre fault. Their esposnes were uncalled for. IF it came off as cheap shots, it wa scasue yuo feared what you elanred was wrong. The only two shots I ever took were as God si all powerful, so of course relaity is altere,d and God beign Himself, His Son,a dn His Son's Spirit. Relly, onyl the firts 2 is needed, as God as His SOn is God as Hsi Son's Spirit. That's knocking the counting, not the belief.
And even if ym psot truely wa satatcking, who agev them to right to atatck me? It's their opinion I'm atatcking. Others have looke dta it and saw no atatck. Erego, they should have responded calmly and freidnly, sayign I did indeed offend them,a nd I seem to be knocking their beliefs, nto quetsionign them. Perhaps I woudl see their point and hence tyr to rephrase it. BUt by vicuously attacking me with intent to hurt (Of which I clearly had none,a nd you even say I mad eit coem off as hurt, which iss till not intentional), they only proved em rgith in saying there's soemhtignw rong with what we're told. ONly those with soemthing to lose will defend it viciously to the detah. Liek they did. IF they truly thoguht Iw a sworng, they woudl have told me, and we coudl ahev settled it calmly and rationalyl, as is the only wya. Instead, they decide dto bringt hsi down to a 2 year old slevel, and seem tog et upset that I followed suit, and didn't cry to my Mommy for comfort.
SO if I offended them by seeming to be giving offesne, I am sorry for your msiunderstanding it. But I did not delibertaley atatck you, erego why msut you deliberately atatck me? I even said I eman no offense. Whetehr I did give soem si irrelevant,a s intent was not there. Tehy replied with intent to hurt, and they did the msit graviets thign of all, intentionally atatcked soemoen with desire to hurt. And tot hem I offe rno appologies, for they do not seem to wnat to offer me any. They coem up with diea thta I wnat to impres speopela nd prove myself smarter than all, when all I did was aks them to thinka botu soemhting,a dn explain why. MY psot clearly saiid, reply back and prove me wrong. FI they missed thta point,t henthye don't belong on the internet, for many will ask them these things, and won't spell it out word for word and beg them to prove them wrong. S oem simpel inferrenc eis required to read betwen the lines. If I said I am the smartest ebign ever, you would reply bakc that Iw asn't, or
prove it. Why, casue it clealry requires a response. Sur,e soem idiots would ahve to degrade me and hurt me, but ther'ed be soem who would simply deny it or come bakc wiht a sharp wit (Then ehyc na't you spell so good?)

: So here is a calm, rational response, so if you feel like attacking it, we can start again.
Yes, it was calm and rational, though caps were not needed at all.

:Let's just not have any more name calling, okay?

:--Gremlin

:PS: Sorry for the intrusion =)

:--G
You cna do this Gremlin? (Well, obviosuly.) But COOL! : )

Follow Ups: