Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?

Author: Tradesecret ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 63
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    If you go back to my OP I never said God agreed with a whom.

    I know what you wrote, that is why I have questioned it.  

    This is what you wrote and in context: #1


    The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated. 


    I said God agreed with the position that story of Genesis conveyed in respect of humanity,

    But Genesis, although it  is said to be  is "god inspired"  wasn't written before the flood, was it?    





     And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all  things biblical?

    Firstly, this is not true.

    This thread - your thread - proves different doesn't it.  You want to discuss things that the scriptures don't even mention. its in the title- your title: 

    Author:Tradesecret,2 days ago. Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?
    So you accept that neither the scriptures nor god does not mention "ONLY adult animals" but you want to discuss something not mentioned.


    I often discuss what the scriptures do say.

    So you have grasped the only  reason that this religion forum exists.


    Why is  that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or  what biblical characters don't even  say?  
    I do not think that it is a preference of mine at all. 

     Not true.

    I prefer to discuss the bible and to read it in its context.

    Well this thread alone shows that to be false doesn't it.  Where does it clearly state that god commanded that ONLY INFANT animals enter into the ark? It doesn't does it? But here you are, attempting to make a point and  build an argument around something  the scriptures do not even state. 

    Is asking question about what isn't even written in scripture or words not spoken said by Jesus , his disciples or written by the biblical authors, discussing the bible "in context"? 

    Given that your responses are obviously all tongue in cheek, i don't see what needs to be replied to. 


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret



    Given that your responses are obviously all tongue in cheek, i don't see what needs to be replied to.
    What an absolute cowardly response. 


    The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live.  God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated.
    Considering that Genesis - indeed the bible - wasn't even thought about at the time of the flood then  tell me, "God agreed"?  With whom? 


    Hence he decided to demonstrate grace towards Noah, his family and either two or seven of every kind of creature, depending upon whether they were clean or unclean and in order for humanity to have a s chance. God knew that humanity did not deserve it. Yet, out of his kindness and mercy, he commanded Noah to build an Ark in which his family and all animals - could enter and be safe.

    And did this include all the fresh drinking water and all the different kinds of foods these different animals ate for the five months floating about on the sea.   Such as Eucalyptus for the Australian Koala. Bamboo for the Chinese Panda. Leaves of the toxic milkweed plant for the Monarch Butterfly.  Prairie dogs for the Black-footed Ferret. Natural fermented nectar of the Bertram Palm for Pen-tailed Treeshrew.  And  one has to ask how did Noah round up the Echidna and Aardvarks and Wallabies and Kangaroos or the 21 species of animals and birds native only to New Zealand. Then there are those only native to Madagascar such as the  Lemurs ,Pochards, Giraffe Weevil, Panther Chameleon and the Tomato Frog?




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    So let's see. Which part of "I am not going to explore rabbit holes don't you understand"?


    I asked a question. You answered it. Let's move onto other discussions on other topics. 

    And please stop calling me a coward.  It is not true - and it hardly is likely to persuade me to answer. 


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret

    Let's move onto other discussions on other topics. 

     I am . I asked you  two questions above. Did you miss them? Or was they simply too difficult for you to concoct a logical excuse around. 

    You could always go to this thread and try out the questions you have totally ignored#37



  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,353
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Tradesecret
    I think that all of the above just goes to prove that the Ark story is probably something of an exaggerated myth.

    As I suggested elsewhere, it was perhaps derived from hand me down tales, whereby some guy probably rescued a few goats from a flooded pasture in a small boat.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @zedvictor4
    Hi and thanks for your comments. 

    I will take it under consideration. 


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Let's move onto other discussions on other topics. 

     I am . I asked you  two questions above. Did you miss them? Or was they simply too difficult for you to concoct a logical excuse around. 

    You could always go to this thread and try out the questions you have totally ignored#37
    Why is it that you have to taint everything you direct at me with "ridicule"? 

    I am happy to answer those questions.  Start a new topic and I will do so in due course. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Why is it that you have to taint everything you direct at me with "ridicule"? 

    Your victim- hood is not working. ......  least not on me .

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @secularmerlin
    If you agree that pedophilia is abominable and unconnected with homosexuality in any rational way it does make me wonder why you brought it up since it is not otherwise impactful to our discussion. I am not emotional by the way and this isn't a personal topic for me per se I am just not going to let you get away with pretending that allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they choose and allowing pedophiles to harm children are in any way related subjects. If you think homosexuality is in some way immoral you will have to support your claim without reference to pedophilia. 
    Don't try and make me say something I did not say. 

    I think pedophilia is abominable.  I am not the one who says it is connected with homosexuality. You can read that in the leading sexual orientation reports - such as the Kinsey Report. 

    I explained why I raised it.  It is a perfect example of how people let their emotions into the topic and are unable to separate it objectively.  I don't know why you try and keep suggesting that I am conflating the two. My point is - sexual orientations if they exist ought to be analyzed objectively. I also further suggested that de-facto relationships come into play here.  For the record, I don't have an issue of comparing ordinary heterosexuals married couple with pedophilia. It in no way suggests there is a link between the two. But that is because I am being objective and rational. 

    I think any sex outside of God ordained and ordered marriage is sinful.  This includes pornography and masturbation. And therefore wrong. 

    I don't happen to think that just because two adults are consenting that this makes it ok. I don't agree with drugs either. So if two consenting adults consumed drugs behind closed doors - it would still be illegal even if no one else ever gets hurt.  Or if two adults had a séance, I would state that it is wrong as well. But does this mean I think it should be illegal or that they are bad people? No that would be a dumb conclusion to draw, methinks.  Similarly, despite my objection to homosexuality, I would not be one to advocate that it ought to be criminalized again. That too would be dumb. 

    But this is a rabbit hole - and one I did not want to go down.  
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    ROFL!
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,658
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
    Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. There are straight and gay and bisexual pedophiles. It is clearly something other than sexual orientation because pedophiles have their own sexual orientation that is not governed by their pedophilia. If you can recognize this then we can move on although now we might have to discuss exactly what is wrong with extra marital sex, drugs, or seances before we get back to your actual topic.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,353
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @secularmerlin
    Paedophilia:  Same primary drive....Alternative modus operandi.....Orientation acquired at some level of development (nature or nurture)....I think that the jury is still out as to which level exactly.

    The act is outlawed by an established idea of right and wrong....Just as other acts were once outlawed.

    Primary drive is, whereas social condemnation or justification becomes.


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,303
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    RoderickSpode,

    YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU MISSED THE POINT: "So under this premise, which would be more likely? Infant or adult animals?"

    What part of this statement of mine didn't you understand?:  "SIMPLY PUT, AND WHERE WE PROMISE NOT TO LAUGH FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, LET US USE "DINOSAUR INFANTS" INSTEAD OF "ADULT DINOSAURS,"  and leave the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other “kinds” of breathing life that had to be upon the crowding available space on the Ark for later, okay?"

    For the sake of a discussion, I am just going with the proposition of "infant kinds of breathing life" (Genesis 7:14-15) upon the Ark because this is the main premise of the thread. Whereas, a pseudo-christian can NEVER say that ONLY animals were placed upon Noah's ark like one embarrassingly did in the past, where this showed the complete Bible ineptness this Christian had! LOL!

    Both pro and con propositions are troubling, where if a pseudo-christian can actually say there had to be baby animals, fledgling birds, fish frys, insect larvae, and dinosaur hatchlings upon Noah's ark, then how did they "enter" onto the Ark like it is stated in Genesis 7:9 as infants?   Whereas, this is just the beginning of trampling upon biblical axioms relating to Noah's ark when "infant breathing life" of all "kinds" are mentioned, understood?  

    Most importantly, how did all of these "infant kinds of breathing life" (Genesis 7:14-15) survive in the Arks environment without the ADULT MOTHERS AND FATHERS providing for them as they would have done in their natural environments?   Let alone, and in only "one kind" of thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of "kinds," how did Noah feed 8 pairs of "infant sharks" that had to be in a separate saline water tank to prevent them from eating the "other 'kinds' of fish" upon the waters for 371 days?!  A truly Bible inept pseudo-christian mentioned there had to be water tanks on  Noah's ark for every "kind" of fish, therefore if he thought this to be true, then so should we! 


    Now, there is no further need to dodge my questions to you in post #4, AND in addressing EVERY proposition within this post as well, is there? Good.


    ++++++++++++++ RoderickSpode, I do have to tell you that it is appreciated that YOU DID NOT RUNAWAY from the obvious complications of the Flood and Noah's ark like a certain Bible inept pseudo-christian did at their total embarrassment within this forum in the past!  Good for you!  ++++++++++++++


    .
    And it all seems pretty obvious - to me at least - that your words in bold above and  from his previous posts-all relate to tradesectret, you can correct me if I am wrong?