The gene serum is a satanic baptism: the Deep State and Deep Church

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: chr0naut

I know i am insane.

I bet you still believe you are a sane person. That was/is your first mistake.

Honestly, you could think that you are made entirely out of wood and it really woodn't lend any credibility.



I am not insane. I have a very balanced and rational outlook on the world, and I know it.

a reply to: CharlesT

Naw mate just plain English, with an wee injection of Scots from time to time.

a reply to: chr0naut

The story is obviously not real and should not be taken literally nor attempted to be explained scientifically.

originally posted by: LetTheColdCome
Due, in part, to Nephilim polluting bloodlines and the human genome.

Nephilim, sure.

originally posted by: LetTheColdCome
So, because you don’t value these stories, those who do are insane?

Anyone who literally thinks the entire earth was flooded and that a 500 year old man built a giant boat which was stocked with two of every species is nuts.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Seems to be a repetition where organised religious practice is concerned, sacrifice that is, even of the human sorts.

Kill something or someone and everything will be ok, talk about ignorance and fear, that ticks all those boxes.

Take the Aztecs for example, have to wonder how many millions of people were slaughtered in the name of their gods so the Sun still rose every day?

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

I don't believe I'm that intelligent so you could be right.

As to your Eve mumbo jumbo, so what is it woman's fault now???

Im fine with the possibility of a creator go back and read the thread silly billy. LoL

And its not me that seems to be triggered or offended but yourself.

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

That's is pal you get all the religious twonk, venom, and hate off your chest.

Cough it up it will do the dog.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LetTheColdCome
Due, in part, to Nephilim polluting bloodlines and the human genome.

Nephilim, sure.

Good argument.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: LetTheColdCome

This was a mistake. I'm sorry.

I'm getting tired.

Not a mistake. It’s just unfortunate that this site is littered with blasphemers who have no interest in discussing the nuances, but they’d much rather derail and troll. It’s pathetic.

It’s one thing if you want to engage in a debate, but it’s entirely different if you’re commenting on this thread simply to insult.

If that’s what they want to do, I have no problem using their secular tactics as well. Fair is fair.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LetTheColdCome

That's is pal you get all the religious twonk, venom, and hate off your chest.

Cough it up it will do the dog.

I literally have no idea what you just said to me. You might as well be speaking another language.

A woman’s fault? Huh? You ankle-biters love your non-sequiturs. If that helps, fine.

And, great, you’re fine with the possibility of a creator, just not of the Abrahamic ilk? Why? Because you can’t cognitively comprehend ancient writings? You feel as though you don’t ‘owe’ your creator anything? What’s the reasoning? At the very least explain one serious point here instead of constantly derailing with your lame British twang.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LetTheColdCome
So, because you don’t value these stories, those who do are insane?

Anyone who literally thinks the entire earth was flooded and that a 500 year old man built a giant boat which was stocked with two of every species is nuts.

Why do most ancient cultures have a global flood story? Why do a notable number of atheists believe in a worldwide, catastrophic event ~ 12,000 years ago?

You can keep spewing the crap out of your mouth but it doesn’t make it true. Your position is simply the mirrored inverse of those you call ‘nuts.’

See, I can sit here and easily admit that the Noah story, in general, is difficult to swallow; I’m sure we don’t have all the pieces/information to fully grasp what happened. I admit it’s far-fetched. That’s the difference between people like me, and people like you:

You think you know everything, and therefore can’t leave even the slightest increment for reasoning or possibilities outside of your know-it-all mentality. As if your limited experiences qualify the entire arc of world history.

People like you bother people like me because you’d rather shut down the conversation than have an actual dialogue. 99% of your comments here are lazy trolling comments. It would be better if you’d exit the conversation, but your ego has to be stroked somehow, I suppose.

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

Calm down.

"The aim of argument or of discussion should not be victory, but progress."

My problem with "the Abrahamic ilk" as you put it are the many religious that came before.

Cant all be correct you see, and they are not all claiming the same thing.

I don't own anybody anything. LoL

Which "serious point" would you have me address?

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

Because the only proof of it is the least convincing book ever written.

For the record I would not consider myself an atheist, I believe very much in the paranormal and have my own set of personal spiritual beliefs. Though none of them revolve around anything purported by the Abrahamic faiths.

a reply to: Ohanka

The Bible is indeed an unreliable source because it contains numerous contradictions.

Logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false.

Hence the contradictions contained with in said book prove that the text has many false statements.

Pearl of wisdom to be had now and again for sure, but hardly the word of God but rather the words of Man with all his fear and fallibility at play.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LetTheColdCome

Calm down.

"The aim of argument or of discussion should not be victory, but progress."

My problem with "the Abrahamic ilk" as you put it are the many religious that came before.

Cant all be correct you see, and they are not all claiming the same thing.

I don't own anybody anything. LoL

Which "serious point" would you have me address?

I agree there are bits and pieces of truth in all spiritual modalities, it seems. What I resent is the obtuse rhetoric targeting Christianity, specifically. It’s clear projection of some sort, otherwise all spiritual ventures would have the exact same accusations leveled at them, which is almost never the case.

What you see as contradictions, I see as opportunities to educate myself more and deepen my understanding. Just because you see a “contradiction” doesn’t make it so. Those who’ve spent essentially no real time studying scripture love to leap at any and all possibilities to disprove it, rather than objectively taking the time to understand the nuances. As I’ve heard others say before: don’t approach scripture the same way a butcher approaches a hog, which is exactly what I see most of you doing here.

Do we have all the answers? Of course not, and that’s not the point. But people like you have raised numerous issues throughout history and only time/archeology have brought solutions. For example, Daniel’s claims regarding the Babylonian invasion and enslavement of the Hebrew people by Nebuchadnezzar were criticized for hundreds of years, until…

this

Archeology proves time, and time again, that those 66 books are most certainly reliable. They even recently found Goliath’s home village of Gath. So, raising issues is fine and obviously encouraged. But, when the facts bubble to the surface, what price do those who’ve been lifelong critics pay? Absolutely nothing. They drift away back into the shadows before returning with another criticism; the evidence will literally never be enough for people like this.

My point: are there issues and questions? of course. But to be so arrogant as to dismiss basically the entire book as a “contradiction” or “unreliable” is foolish and simply points to your own dislike of the source material. The Bible is extremely important for understanding our reality.

I’ll calm down when you stop making ridiculous comments like “dude in the sky.” How is that a level foundation to even begin to have a decent discussion? If that’s how you want to act, you’ll receive the same in return, it’s that simple. Don’t gaslight.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: LetTheColdCome

Because the only proof of it is the least convincing book ever written.

For the record I would not consider myself an atheist, I believe very much in the paranormal and have my own set of personal spiritual beliefs. Though none of them revolve around anything purported by the Abrahamic faiths.

Refer to my previous response. It’s fine if you think the Bible is unconvincing. That’s, at the very least, a mature way of expressing your feelings.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ohanka

The Bible is indeed an unreliable source because it contains numerous contradictions.

Logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false.

For example, in the gospel accounts, there are certain claims that an event happened on a specific day. One account gives one date, another, a different date.

Using your “logic,” we should pack it up right then and there. “See! The Bible is false! Look at this contradiction I found! I win!”

Oh, but wait, theologians discover that the dates are “contradictory” because one account was using the Roman calendar, whereas the other account, the Hebrew calendar.

These are the “contradictions” I see from the peanut gallery, time and again. There’s no actual desire in wanting to get at the root, there’s only the sweet victory of proving something false that, in your mind, couldn’t possibly be true.

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

The Bible is not false per-say.

But its simply not the work of God, but a product of Man.

As long as you accept and understand that very pertinent fact we can discuss what ever you please if its relevant to the topic.

As i said through logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false, hence the contradictions are indeed points of contention.

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

If Archaeology proves anything its that the Earth and civilisation is a lot older than about 6000 years.

Take Göbeklitepe for instance.

Did the flood bury that place?

Nope, but people did.

Humans have been around for about 200,000 years in their present condition even if civilisation had not, what does the Bible and Abrahamic religions have to say about that fact?