I was making his argument. I do not see you as a hate mongering bigot intolerant of Christianity. You may be like me. I tolerate other people's religious beliefs, but I do not tolerate people pushing their beliefs at me and expecting me to STFU and be respectful, where they do not intend to repay the favor. I push back.
This particular topic has been beaten into the ground multiple times over the last few years. You can search the D&D archives for enlightenment (or not). Needless to say, you are overstating the historical record in your own favor. Much of what you mentioned above are *belief* statements that lack corresponding historical proof. In the end, much of what Christianity is is based on beliefs, which is not a bad thing.
Yeah my post was a response to Fatty's which delcared those who consider the flood myth to be just that "anti-christ people". But whatever...
Bad math. Actually good math, but bad assumption. If it was a million years ago, I bet Ararat wasn't as high as it is today. Mountains are rising due to earth-shell movement.
The literalist's argument is that the world was created 6000 years ago, not 1 million years ago or 4.5 billion years ago. Mount Ararat's elevation is 5,165 m (16,945 ft), so using 10,000 ft in my calculation was generous.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the word "forty" might actually have been a term that expressed a great amount of time. Some scholars think that it was a figure of speech due to the other occurances where the word "forty" is used in the bible. If anyone knows more about this then please respond, but I just remember reading it somewhere. Then again I could be wrong.
Actually, I have a lot more faith than most people I know, even the "devout" Christians. I just believe in a much wider view of God than most people I know.
But no one is arguing for the literalist, not even the original article. So your calculation is "uninvited".
i can't believe this got moved to the d& d................. some of the side arguments in here are not the most intellectually stimulating things i've seen lately. meowgi + no worries = go away.
An article suggesting that Noah's Ark is atop any mountain pushes credibility and my you-got-to-be-kidding-me button. What if the article that was posted in the thread was wrt finding the Loch Ness monster? Most people would demiss its credbility, out of hand. I would expect many people to reply to such a post with levity and/or contempt. Such posters would not be called hate mongering bigots, I suspect.
Jesus loves you, Mr. Meowgi. Budha if he could get past this whole life pain thing would probably love you too. Mohammed does not really love you, but he is kinda picky.
the article isn't posted off evangelist.com. it's space.com. dismiss or whatever. but coming in and saying that people who view the bible literally deserve to be called stupid earns you something close to "bigot". maybe it earns you something more like what Jeff said, "arrogant." you've still yet to tell me who pushed anything on you here.
first posted comment: wowwwwwwwwwwwww...there is a god. but serisously, this would be a great discovery either way
