Did Noah have help?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
No. I'm simply pointing out that attempting to be scientifically or rationally accurate about Bible prose is as logical as doing the same with anything faith-based. Talking snakes and the ark are all fairy tales, kind of like Odin and his brothers making the world from the body of the first primordial giant or the sun being a god on a chariot as thought the Greeks.

Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

I believe that BWR is religious. I base this belief on faith. Nothing he can say can change that belief. 😉

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Isn't [the Answers in Genesis] site ... wrong ... ?
As Noah lived like 900 years, the 120 year human cap was initiated after the flood correct?
And he was already like 500 years before he started work on the ark.

Many of the things in the Bible don't happen instantly.

They tend to occur over a period of time.

Examine now these 2 charts based on the lifespans of the patriarchs pre-flood and post-flood, according to the Bible.

Notice that the lifespan of people is shorter after the flood and becomes lower every subsequent generation until the average is down to around ... 120 years.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

😂 🤣

I got to go get my glass.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...

This just goes to show that even fiction can be represented in a chart.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

"Evasion" implies there's something in my path that I need to pay attention to.

Or is relevant to the thread topic.

Or is even something that should be paid attention to.

Until you make a good case for the above, or give me other reason to think it worth my time, my answer to you is the same as Neil DeGrasse Tyson's to similar query:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not an "ism" ...
I think for myself.

The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement,
then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it TO you,
and when you want to have a conversation,
they will assert, that they already know everything important there is to know about you,
because of that association.

And that's not the way to have a conversation
I'm sorry. It's not."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

BWR That quote does not apply to you. Neil DeGrasse Tyson would not run away from a relevant question. However, I do agree that it is not relevent to this thread, but I can understand Stealth Moose's frustration with you.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Evasion" implies there's something in my path that I need to pay attention to.

Just a question which was leveled your way many times, and directly impacts your standing in debates. It's entirely logical to speculate given your past history of championing Abrahamic religious arguments and your spammarrific thread about Bible gateway table of contents. The fact that remotely questioning or attacking religious line of thought draws your attention is pretty telling in itself.

Or is relevant to the thread topic.

That hasn't stopped you before, Mr. R. Herring.

Or is even something that should be paid attention to.

Funny, coming from:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're Christian again now?

Until you make a good case for the above, or give me other reason to think it worth my time, my answer to you is the same as Neil DeGrasse Tyson's to similar query:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not an "ism" ...
I think for myself.

The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement,
then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it TO you,
and when you want to have a conversation,
they will assert, that they already know everything important there is to know about you,
because of that association.

And that's not the way to have a conversation
I'm sorry. It's not."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Your usual; refusal to stand firm and take a stance, nitpicking, misdirection and red herrings, followed by a quote marginally related, as if citation makes everything okay.

Again:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're Christian again now?

My question to you is the same. You can either answer because you have been asked many times, or refuse to and let us speculate on why. If you are saying "Hurr, I don't want to be pinned down", too bad. You're already being associated given your posting history. People make judgments based on available evidence, so withholding evidence and then whining about being pigeon-holed is counter-productive.

Either you feel religious evidence is valid or you don't. And you either have an argument as to why this is the case or you don't. If it's an unexamined idea or argument, it's up for challenging. If you are refusing to make that statement for fear of coming under personal fire, maybe don't go to a diverse forum. Or outside.

I haven't run from the question. I answered it directly and concisely. What are you afraid of? Being held accountable for your words? Your past history of hedging, misdirection and retreating implies that is the case.

😕

Is that what you're having for dinner?

I can probably get you in contact with some food service agencies if you're having trouble, Shake.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I haven't run from the question. I answered it directly and concisely.

Are you pretending you're good at answering questions now?

Answers these two, then:

1. You make a lot of noise about Abrahamic religions being discriminatory against homosexuals.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

How then, do you account for the fact that one of the countries most recently in the news for criminalizing homosexuality, is India, whose majority demographic religion is Hinduism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India

and whose lawmakers, arguably, are secular people?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a shocking decision, the Indian Supreme Court has reversed the July 2009 ruling of the Delhi High Court decriminalizing gay sex between consenting adults. In doing so, the Indian Supreme Court has re-criminalized gay sex in India, rendering almost 20 percent of the global LGBT population illegal.
Overturning a High Court decision, the Indian Supreme Court upheld Indian Penal Code 377, an archaic and barbaric law that criminalizes "homosexual" acts:

377. Unnatural offenses -- Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Western media and LGBT organizations are likely to demonize India and Indians after this ruling, which does not make life easier for Indians who are gay and lesbian abroad, and conveniently casts the West as an arbiter of freedom. Anthopologist Akshaye Khanna articulates this quite well:

We are seeing, in several parts of the world, a cynical appropriation of the discourse of sexual rights and sexuality by right-wing and reactionary agendas. In Western Europe, North America and Israel, we see the phenomenon of 'homonationalism', where LGBT discourse is being used in deeply racist -- usually Islamophobic -- groups. In East Africa, the question of sexuality has come to be the central question in discourse about the nation -- where notions of 'Africanness' have come to be tied to the position on homosexuality. This centering of the question of sexuality is always a way of diverting attention from political and economic questions relating to the control over natural resources, or instances of corruption ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/prerna-lal/indias-supreme-court-gay-sex_b_4425457.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t590516.html

2. If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain the fact that the leaders of The Church of Satan, of all institutions, are ALSO resistant to condoning homosexuality?

The First Family Of Satanism
(Bob Larson Interviews Zeena Lavey and Nikolas Schreck)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WcKrdFHTds
(16 min 57 sec mark to 17 min 54 sec mark; a total of 57 seconds worth of viewing)

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕

Is that what you're having for dinner?

I can probably get you in contact with some food service agencies if you're having trouble, Shake.

No, but I couldn't find a video with crickets chirping.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Are you pretending you're good at answering questions now?

I don't have to pretend. Can you indicate anywhere where I was contradictory or inconsistent on my status as a non-believer of Christianity?

Answers these two, then:

I've asked you something like four times and all I get is this:

Let me ask again. I'll keep it in multiple question-format so you can negate anything you think is too damning:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Are you of any Abrahamic faith?
3. Do you give any credit to any Abrahamic faith?
4. If any of the above are true, why?
5. Why do you defend Abrahamic believers at KMC but refuse to self-identify?
6. Why do I have to answer these same questions but you are exempt?
7. Why are you so fond of misdirection?

1. You make a lot of noise about Abrahamic religions being discriminatory against homosexuals.

Really, a defining attribute of all but the most liberal interpretations or followings of Abrahamic dogma is homophobia. I'd even point out that those self-professed Christians or Muslims who don't actively disagree with homosexuality are being apostates, or at the very least extremely selective in their application of dogma.

But then again, no one follows all of the rules consistently; just the ones that fit their bias. Homophobes who happen to be Christians use the scripture as a defense, but ignore all the other tenets because it suits them. Hypocrisy indeed.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=4

Keep on reading:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you. 😄 But most Christians and Muslims are also laid back and don't infringe on others rights. It's extremism that destroys a religion.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Hrm. True. LIberal Muslims and Christians usually take the best that religion has to offer and don't dwell on the literal wording that sometimes doesn't mesh with modern society.

Sometimes.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
There's a possibility we're all wrong. I just don't see why people want to control, fight and kill each other to prove they they are right.

Context is a beautiful thing.

How then, do you account for the fact that one of the countries most recently in the news for criminalizing homosexuality, is India, whose majority demographic religion is Hinduism,

Whether or not India has this problem doesn't change the fundamental fact that gay hate is a rather core principle among Abrahamic fundamentalists and even some of the less conservative members, and has been for thousands of years. Using the current First-World exceptions isn't very helpful given that these progressive changes are also concurrent with an erosion of Christian dominance in these areas. A lot of the current fundie movement appears to be a knee-jerk against perceived heresy and decline of the majority, or at least most religious leaders indicate as much while speaking in expensive auditoriums wearing fancy suits.

and whose lawmakers, arguably, are secular people?

Snip[

You do realize that the source you quoted states the reason for the reversal of the decision is because being gay is apparently against the order of nature, right?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t590516.html

K. I know the thread very well. You might even see me in there.

2. If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain the fact that the leaders of The Church of Satan, of all institutions, are ALSO resistant to condoning homosexuality?

I wouldn't, because I am not discussing them, nor am I introducing them into the argument under the guise that they are relevant.

So let me help you with your future replies:

[list][*] Ignore direct questions, especially if they hurt your stance/argument.
[*] Post some kind of barely related citation. Block quote it as if it makes a difference.
[*] Nitpick the opposition. Twist everything they say, even if the semantics require double joints to do so.
[*] Make sure you don't actually take a stance on anything. If pinned down, dodge like Neo in a wind tunnel.
[*] Take the argument to the opposition, questioning their morals, their upbringing, their true motives, and their behaviors in an effort to keep the spotlight on them and not on you where it rightly belongs.
[*] Resubscribe to Religious Trolls Weekly.[/list]

Now time for random slightly related bullshit:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Ignore direct questions, especially if they hurt your stance/argument.

mmm

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain the fact that the leaders of The Church of Satan, of all institutions, are ALSO resistant to condoning homosexuality?

The First Family Of Satanism
(Bob Larson Interviews Zeena Lavey and Nikolas Schreck)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WcKrdFHTds
(16 min 57 sec mark to 17 min 54 sec mark; a total of 57 seconds worth of viewing)

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

... I am not discussing them ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm

What's your point?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What's your point?

Stealth Moose doesn't consider the other side of his arguments.

If "homophobia" as he calls it, is something distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic morality, then you shouldn't expect to find it in non-Abrahamic religions, you shouldn't expect to find it in secular communities, and you shouldn't expect to find it in a group that is, arguably, perfectly and diametrically OPPOSED to Abrahamic morality.

But you do.

He's giving special attention to Islam and Christianity for reasons known only to himself.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I couldn't find a video with crickets chirping ...

😕

Would you be able to play it if you did?

You said YouTube was blocked on your computer --
what channels does it allow?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕

Would you be able to play it if you did?

You said YouTube was blocked on your computer --
what channels does it allow?

Ya, good point, that maybe the reason I couldn't find one.

I don't know what is blocked. Sometimes websites that are related to my job get blocked, and sometimes they're okay.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Stealth Moose doesn't consider the other side of his arguments.

If "homophobia" as he calls it, is something distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic morality, then you shouldn't expect to find it in non-Abrahamic religions, you shouldn't expect to find it in secular communities, and you shouldn't expect to find it in a group that is, arguably, perfectly and diametrically OPPOSED to Abrahamic morality.

But you do.

He's giving special attention to Islam and Christianity for reasons known only to himself.

Your what if is incorrect. For example circumcision is distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic religions, but we find it in secular communities, and other religions.

Noah had help, he employed gangs of homosexual, who later died in the flood. /answered