The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know everyone is fed-up with FF on this forum and about how every topic appears to gravitate towards him and his beliefs, but I have a genuine question for him.
If the Bible is all fact, as you have repeatedly claimed, then how can their be two creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2?
If the Bible is all fact, as you have repeatedly claimed, then how can their be two creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2?
Page:
Cyclone wrote:
> Oh, what a joyful precedent to set...
Heh. "I am a loving God who bringeth peace and love to all. But if you don't shed somebodies blood (your own or someone elses), then you're gonna be tortured for eternity."
Slight contradiction perhaps?
> Oh, what a joyful precedent to set...
Heh. "I am a loving God who bringeth peace and love to all. But if you don't shed somebodies blood (your own or someone elses), then you're gonna be tortured for eternity."
Slight contradiction perhaps?
Archangel wrote:
>> "Without shedding of blood there is no remission (of
> sins)."
Oh, what a joyful precedent to set...
>> "Without shedding of blood there is no remission (of
> sins)."
Oh, what a joyful precedent to set...
Forest Fan wrote:
> It's a very interesting debate and yes Archangel is right, but there
> was still (like Archangel says) an attempt to create religion at the
> Tower of Babel.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Even when proved 100% incorrect, you desperately try to cling onto being right. You show all the humility of a US soldier in Iraq.
Okay; AA states specifically that religion starts after Adam and Eve. NOT after the tower of Babel. AT NO POINT does he state that there was an attempt to create religion with the tower. Not once. The only person here who has said that is....you. No one else.
Now tell me; why are you so happy to use your own interpretations of the Bible when you insist everyone else take it literally? Would it be because you're a hypocrite, or just because you're stupid?
> It's a very interesting debate and yes Archangel is right, but there
> was still (like Archangel says) an attempt to create religion at the
> Tower of Babel.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Even when proved 100% incorrect, you desperately try to cling onto being right. You show all the humility of a US soldier in Iraq.
Okay; AA states specifically that religion starts after Adam and Eve. NOT after the tower of Babel. AT NO POINT does he state that there was an attempt to create religion with the tower. Not once. The only person here who has said that is....you. No one else.
Now tell me; why are you so happy to use your own interpretations of the Bible when you insist everyone else take it literally? Would it be because you're a hypocrite, or just because you're stupid?
I cant believe this argument is still going on. Face it FF, you are wrong. Even your wrong interpretation doesnt explain the spread of religion. The people at the tower were all united with the same idea of making the tower. The had the same religion. If they were spread around the world they would all have the same religion.
And dont dare say God mixed that up too because the passage only says that languages were mixed.
And dont dare say God mixed that up too because the passage only says that languages were mixed.
It's a very interesting debate and yes Archangel is right, but there was still (like Archangel says) an attempt to create religion at the Tower of Babel.
Thanks Archangel.
So then Mary; you still running like a squealing little girl, or are you going to show even a sliver of humility?
So then Mary; you still running like a squealing little girl, or are you going to show even a sliver of humility?
I'm forced to agree with Light and Pandemonium here, FF. Religion (of man) didn't start at the tower of Babel. That's just where God confused languages so man couldn't accomplish his task.
"Religion" started in the garden of Eden, right after Adam and eve sinned. They sewed together fig leaves (amazing, isn't it? the knowledge they had?) to cover their nakedness. It was their attempt to make themselves look righteous before God.
Later, their son Cain attempted his own brand of religion by bringing God an unacceptable "sacrifice." He brought what the ground had yielded in growth (he didn't grow it, God did) instead of going to his brother and asking for a lamb. The Bible clearly states, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission (of sins)."
"Religion" started in the garden of Eden, right after Adam and eve sinned. They sewed together fig leaves (amazing, isn't it? the knowledge they had?) to cover their nakedness. It was their attempt to make themselves look righteous before God.
Later, their son Cain attempted his own brand of religion by bringing God an unacceptable "sacrifice." He brought what the ground had yielded in growth (he didn't grow it, God did) instead of going to his brother and asking for a lamb. The Bible clearly states, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission (of sins)."
Forest Fan wrote:
> Read the chapter again Light and you will find the origin of religion
> and what made God so unhappy.
I've read it, and it says absolutely nothing of the sort. So why don't you tell us all exactly which part of the chapter states explicitly that the fall of the Tower of Babel spread religion around the world.
C'mon; lets see if there is anything more to you than cowardice, hypocrisy, and arrogance. I'm willing to bet that there isn't.
> Read the chapter again Light and you will find the origin of religion
> and what made God so unhappy.
I've read it, and it says absolutely nothing of the sort. So why don't you tell us all exactly which part of the chapter states explicitly that the fall of the Tower of Babel spread religion around the world.
C'mon; lets see if there is anything more to you than cowardice, hypocrisy, and arrogance. I'm willing to bet that there isn't.
Read the chapter again Light and you will find the origin of religion and what made God so unhappy.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Just accept you got it wrong and move on. I thought Christians were
> supposed to show humility? This is outright arrogance and
> stubbornness.
>
> But religion stems from the Tower of Babel, the whole reason the
> Godhead confused the language; because of the religion that the
> people had started.
Heh. Humility? From Mary? Never gonna happen...
My dear boy, you said;
Forest Fan wrote:
> Religion all stems from the Tower of Babel, because man is sinful and
> rebellious and tries to reach up to God, when He has reached down to
> us.
Yet in the Biblical quote you gave us, there is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever, is there? All it mentions is the fall of the tower and the subsequent spread of language. Nowhere does it mention the spread of religion. Not once.
So then; it would appear that your interpretation of the Biblical story of Babel is just that; an interpretation. You haven't taken it literally. Bearing in mind that you squealed and whined about how people should take the Bible literally, and were wrong if they didn't, that makes you a hypocrite. Your refusal to countenence that you may be mistaken on this matter makes you arrogant. And your constant evasion of questions makes you a coward. Now do you see why I call you an arrogant, cowardly, hypocrite?
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Just accept you got it wrong and move on. I thought Christians were
> supposed to show humility? This is outright arrogance and
> stubbornness.
>
> But religion stems from the Tower of Babel, the whole reason the
> Godhead confused the language; because of the religion that the
> people had started.
Heh. Humility? From Mary? Never gonna happen...
My dear boy, you said;
Forest Fan wrote:
> Religion all stems from the Tower of Babel, because man is sinful and
> rebellious and tries to reach up to God, when He has reached down to
> us.
Yet in the Biblical quote you gave us, there is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever, is there? All it mentions is the fall of the tower and the subsequent spread of language. Nowhere does it mention the spread of religion. Not once.
So then; it would appear that your interpretation of the Biblical story of Babel is just that; an interpretation. You haven't taken it literally. Bearing in mind that you squealed and whined about how people should take the Bible literally, and were wrong if they didn't, that makes you a hypocrite. Your refusal to countenence that you may be mistaken on this matter makes you arrogant. And your constant evasion of questions makes you a coward. Now do you see why I call you an arrogant, cowardly, hypocrite?
Page: