Creation

OK I'll accept that you are a genuine believer, though you use a very strange translation of the Bible and ignore the entire history of Biblical exegesis.

Oh screaming nonsense.

This is false and I just answered one example of it yesterday where you misrepresented me as saying Catholics are not Christians when what I've said over and over and over is that they may or may not be, that I am not talking about people as individuals, what I'm talking about is the institution of Roman Catholicism and specifically the antichrist papacy as nonChristian. I am misrepresented about this by many here no matter how carefully I make the distinction, and you are one of them.

I didn't say you SAID it yesterday, I said I ANSWERED it yesterday. In Message 342 you were referring to me when you wrote The first time I answered you Phat removed my post, so I answered you again yesterday (turns out it was actually the day before) in Message 387 with the very lengthy list of the unchristian practices of Roman Catholicism.But I think of you as misrepresenting me all the time. There are a couple of recent examples where you characterize me as calling people "Nazis," which is a serious misrepresentation of what I've been trying to get across in the phrase "LIBERAL NAZIS." Liberals have an ideology that is opposite to that of Nazis but recently they misrepresent people as being themselves Nazis who supposedly violate their liberal ideology, attacking people on the basis of these misrepresentations in the same domineering bullying threatening marginalizing character-assassinating way, using today's Liberal/Leftist Politically Correct arsenal of offenses such as "racism" and "anti-Semitism" and "homophobia" and the like WRONGLY, FALSELY, and now there are organizations such as Antifa that use violence to enforce their lying accusations against innocent people, just like the Brown Shirts did. That's what a LIBERAL Nazi is. Go ahead and complain about THAT if you want, but it's an entirely different thing than "Nazi" and I stand by Liberal Nazi, it's a perfect description of what has been going on for years now and you are one of them.And you misrepresented me as calling people "Nazis" rather than Liberal Nazis in two places recently, in Message 349and in Message 385And this second one was particularly egregious because I had already said I thought Luther was biblically way out of line when he proposed punishments of the Jews. That's a DOUBLE misrepresentation of me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

At first I thought you were talking about an imaginative verbal tour of something that doesn't yet exist, asking the buyer to visualize it, but then it seems you must be talking about something like a video tour you put together? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There, you did it again, saying I talk about "whether Catholics are Christians." I DO NOT. You are missing it AGAIN>NN, there is something seriously wrong with how you are reading this. I was talking about your merely saying ...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...
...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...
...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...
...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS... That is, you are misrepresenting me as talking about CATHOLICS, but I am NOT talking about CATHOLICS. I am talking about CATHOLICISM, not CATHOLICS.You quoted it. It's right there in front of your eyes. ...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...The word I'm talking about is the word CATHOLICS. I'm talking about CATHOLICISM, not CATHOLICS. You said I was talking about CATHOLICS. I am NOT. I am talking about CATHOLICISM, not CATHOLICS.I didn't say anything about your making any comments on it, simply saying I'm talking about CATHOLICS as persons when I've taken pains to say that is NOT what I'm talking about is the problem.I am NOT talking about "CATHOLICS." I am talking about the ideology, the system known as CATHOLICISM. I'm talking about the DOCTRINE, I'm talking about the OFFICE OF THE PAPACY, I am talking about the superstitious practices, I am NOT talking about CATHOLICS, Catholics are PERSONS. I am not talking about persons. I've knocked myself out trying to make this clear and you still aren't getting it. WHY NOT? Please go back and reread that post I wrote. That's what it is all about.You do this to me a lot and it may be nothing but some weird kind of misreading like this, I don't know, but getting across the reality of what I'm saying seems like it should be easy to do and then it turns out it isn't. If you still don't get it and you are still accusing me of lying I will want to tear out all my hair and yours and everybody else's within reach.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Merely stating that you think I'm talking about Catholics rather than Catholicism is the problem and if you read anything I wrote you should know I took pains to try to prevent that very reading. I don't care about the rest of your post, the statement you were making about not discussing the issue, it's totally irrelevant. Just saying I'm talking about CATHOLICS is the problem,. Why can't you get that simple point? I'm serious, why can't you? There really seems to be something wrong with your head. Truly. And you do this sort of thing to me a LOT. You actually very nastily accuse me of lying, even about something right there that I was discussing, instead of considering that maybe we are simply miscommunicating. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That isn't even about Catholics as Christians, it's about how the Catholic Church influences societies where it reigns supreme, which of course keeps their people in a primitive state. You find the one rare place where I mention Catholics as people at all and it isn't even about them, it's about how the Roman Church rules them. It's not even the same subject I'm talking about. But I give up. There's no way to get this simple point across to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks ICANT, it did sound like it must be a computer program but it wasn't clear so I had to ask. Sounds like a really fun piece of equipment.Why is your ark design so different from others?

Right, you don't care about context, you don't care what I'm actually trying to say. I could spend a month explaining the obvious and you wouldn't get it.Yes indeed you said after I had taken pains to say I'm not talking about Catholics, I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about the system, the ideology. Your just saying that much showed you either didn't read what I'd said or you didn't care or both. I doubt you had in mind the statement about Catholic countries at that point, you just threw that in later because it seems to prove me wrong though the context doesn't fit. But I shouldn't bother, this is a lost cause. You've decided to be a Liberal Nazi and find fault with every little thing I say and there's no stopping you. You won't get this either. Ho hum.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My comfort is that God knows.

That's an attractive idea of course since it gives us a much bigger ark, but you don't say exactly where in the Bible you get the 24-inch cubit. And I have to ask if this is your own personal observation or there is anyone else who shares it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The length of a cubit I've usually heard of is 18 inches. I don't know how that was arrived at, it just seems to be commonly accepted. It sounds like there is really no authoritative measurement, it's all a guess in the end, but if there is some reasonable support for the 24 inches I'd think it would be preferred.I do know it's supposed to be based on the forearm measurement from elbow to tip of middle finger and somehow the 18 inches got accepted. It would be on a man's arm of course; my own is 17* and I'd expect the average man's measurement today to be some inches longer. I don't see any reason to think Noah was particularly large though; healthy yes but I'm not sure what that has to do with size. Yes, that makes sense; no need for a curved hull. Don't know why not. It rose, it floated, it went down with the water. Any violence would most likely have been at the edges of the land, or where water rushed down inclines. If the ark was on a level enough and high enough place, and away from the shores I don't see why it would have been affected by that. I don't want to get into a discussion about the Flood with you; I know you disagree with YEC views of it. I think it through for myself though my version is at least somewhat similar to YEC descriptions.I would assume that God said a lot more to Noah than is recorded in the Bible. I certainly do believe in miracles: God did them, His prophets Elijah and Elisha did them, Jesus did them, His disciples did them; but I don't see any reason to think miracles had anything to do with the Flood as it is described in the Bible.Anyway thanks for that information. I think you've got an ark that would hold everything it was supposed to hold. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please tell me the location of these Devonian fossil coral reefs. Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just thought that surely you would know. Sorry.