Should Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?

Nucklesack

Nucklesack

New Member
mAlice said:
Innocent babies, who were not old enough to think for themselves, and had to communicate hunger and pain by crying, evil...because the story says so.

Got it. :yay:
Click to expand...

Isnt it interesting how the lump of cells, not much more evolved than mucous, is an "Innocent".

Yet a fully formed, and born baby is evil incarnate.
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Nucklesack said:
Isnt it interesting how the lump of cells, not much more evolved than mucous, is an "Innocent".

Yet a fully formed, and born baby is evil incarnate.
Click to expand...

It would seem an unborn child was just as evil, otherwise god may have spared the mothers life.
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Nope, the story says nothing of innocent babies. If you saw it there, please provide the biblical reference. TYIA.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that there were no babies on earth during the flood? Where does the bible say that? I've not read that scripture.

Hmmm...not seeing it in Genesis 7:

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
 
Last edited:
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Depends on who is trying to kill it. If the mother is trying to kill it because it's not convenient, that's an innocent child. If God has judged the person not fit, that's a single individual judged based on themselves.

Apples, oranges.
Click to expand...

If god saw fit to kill the unborn babies during the flood, what makes you so sure that he doesn't cause women to make the decision to abort?
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Gen 5:
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
Click to expand...


I read that. It does't say "no babies were harmed".
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Both ways? The story says that all of mankind was evil except Noah and his family, so He saved Noah and his family. Where's the "both ways"?
Click to expand...


So the unborn, and very young, were evil. Got it. :yay:


This is all so very enlightening.
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Not very many people. Odds of pregnancy goes down pretty drastically.
Click to expand...

Although it is difficult to obtain an actual value of world population at the time of the flood, 5 to17 billion people would appear to be reasonable populations, with an average of around 10 billion. The best ages for childbirth would be 80.8 to 92 years with 6 to 7 children per family. This would be 20 to 18 generations produced from Adam to the Flood in 1656. The Book of Genesis indicates (Chapter 5) that each family had at least 5 children. Adam and Eve had a total of 7 (including Abel). However, Noah apparently had only 3 children. (It is possible that he could have had sons and daughters that aren't recorded and who weren't on the ark.)

Genesis Chapter 5 states that each person had "sons and daughters" in addition to the son whose chronology is given. Since a plural is used to describe the number of sons and daughters, a minimum of two sons and two daughters are assumed. Therefore, a reasonable value would appear to be a range of 5 to 8 children per family. As previously stated, Adam and Eve had seven children. Using 5 to 8 children per family, the population falls with in a range of ~2 billion to 11.5 billion (over the range of 16 to 22 generations). (Refer to last four tables at end of section.) It is interesting that today's population of approximately 6 billion fall within this category.


http://forums.somd.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4129219
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Lots of assumptions. And, number of generations is wrong. It was only 10 generations in.

Besides, the math doesn't work to come up with 5 - 17 billion people given 2 to start, and 10 generations in, even with each could having 8 kids. Sorry!
Click to expand...

Okay. I give. You're the smartest person on the planet. :lmao:
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
:shrug: Do you see anywhere in the story where it describes the pregnant women who are drowned? And, even if there were, do you see anywhere in the story where it suggests that God would be held to mankind's standards, vice the other way around?
Click to expand...

Okay. No pregnant women during the flood. Quite possibly, no women on earth at the time of the flood. Got it. :yay:
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Oh, look! Another one!

The warm and gentle climate provided a perfect environment for the growth of large men and animals (possibly the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4). The King James Bible indicates that there were some 1,656 years between the creation and the start of the flood. If we assume that each father begat an average of six children, the pre-flood population would be over one billion people. This would be a rate of increase of 1.5 percent. (The present rate of increase of earth’s population is 2 percent).


Eastside church of Christ in Shortsville, New York
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
This_person said:
Would seem so.
Click to expand...

Okay, there were women (you're killin' me here), and for the sake of argument, let's say there was a population of 10,000 people. Let's say that half of that 10,000 are men, and the remaining 5000 are women and children, then lets say that half of those are women of childbearing age, and that of the 2500 women of childbearing age, none of them are pregnant.

Does that work for you?
 
Nucklesack

Nucklesack

New Member
mAlice said:
I read that. It does't say "no babies were harmed".
Click to expand...

To bad he didnt read the verse he quoted (you'll notice he doesnt read much of the Bible):

So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD​

He is told the Lord wiped everything from the earth, except for Noah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top