Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
<sarcasm>

Answer for questions 1-15: It was a miracle.

Answer for 16: He was bored, bored, bored.

</sarcasm>

 

Apologies for the intrusion.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's funny you should ask this

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 

because as it happens the sons of god shagged the daughters of eve and bore mischievous giants whose pranks on BMX bikes and skateboards and habit of tagging temple walls with ochre graffiti enraged the Type A personality of god so much that he just fucking killed all life in a gigantic global dummy spit but not before entrusting Bindi Irwin with the mighty task of gathering together a seed bank of creatures from which to rekindle another opportunity to slaughter all life when he re-destroys the earth after the reign of jesus ends and, after being sent back for one last opportunity to deceive the faithful (thanks god you arsehat), satan and the beast are cast shrieking into hell.

If this sounds like an episode from Xena Warrior Princess, well...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
TP

DP

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
TP

 TP

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Funny

Funny that not one single YEC has decided to answer any of these questions yet. I do know that there are some that lurk on here. At least there used to be quite a few of them. I would name some names, but that might be like speaking of the devil and them appearing.

I do remember a couple of them on here that I used to go back and forth with that were not trolls and troublemakers, but only a few.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Still waiting. Any YEC

 Still waiting.

 

Any YEC theists care to throw their hat into the ring at this point? Even if you just want to answer one of the questions raised in my OP, that would be a good start..


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Still waiting.

 

Any YEC theists care to throw their hat into the ring at this point? Even if you just want to answer one of the questions raised in my OP, that would be a good start..

Perhaps the answer could be find here from my favorite cartoonist :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


IrJemdyetssom
Posts: 3
Joined: 2012-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Предложение админу форума

spam

 


IrJemdyetssom
Posts: 3
Joined: 2012-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Предложение админу форума

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ah boo, thought

 Ah boo, thought someone was actually going to explain how the flood happened.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2744
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Still waiting.

 

Any YEC theists care to throw their hat into the ring at this point? Even if you just want to answer one of the questions raised in my OP, that would be a good start..

Perhaps the answer could be find here from my favorite cartoonist :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

 

HAHAHAHA. I laughed so hard that I farted.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2744
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Ah boo, thought someone was actually going to explain how the flood happened.

Didn't you see the video? It was magic.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Ah boo, thought someone was actually going to explain how the flood happened.

Didn't you see the video? It was magic.

Smiling

Darkmatter's cartoons always leave me laughing.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Hokay, let's see what we got here.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other NECs are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 
Be aware, I'm not a Christian, and don't use the European interpretations.  1- Yup, babies were killed in the flood. Just like when a drone strike takes place- 20 people die along with their kids to kill one "suspected" terrorist. That's in todays world.;  2- No- the water didn't cover the whole planet. Earth and planet are not used the same in this case. The episode covered only a particular region in the middle east. Their region to them was the whole earth as they knew it. (but we're dealing with the biblical in/output, it may be different for other people)There was no H-2o. The flood happened on accounts of a mental condition. Waters is the same as, a state of mind, using our application of creation where waters is the same a "mind or thoughts".  3- 40, in this case/usage from the Hebrew numeric alphabet is equal to "water with no boundaries" and same as an excessive state of mind, or, out of control. Noah survived in his ark, or fortress to be safe from the people's killing spree.  4- There weren't any animals in the ark (cantainer/vessel) Ark in those times denotes a conatiner or vessel for storage, it wasn't a boat or flotation device.  5- Not applicable 6- There's no way to know how long Noah was in the ark. They came out after it was safe.  7- Not applicable. 8- Not applicable. 9- Not applicable. 10- Not applicable. 11- Not applicable. 12- There were plenty of floks at other places on the planet. The book only deals (as far as we know) with the lineages of Adam. 13- Not applicable. 14- Rainbow----Hummm don't know. The different colors may represent different mental states such as red is the same as anger or hate. Blue the same as even temperment or cool dispostition etc. It doesn't relate to the actual rainbow. The book is about psychiatry, or mental conditions. The Adamites were the first psycho dudes, and far better then today. This is what makes the Psycho Smurfs top notch- A-1 15- There was no God idea in play. God is a Euro application and doesn't apply. Being that the pre-Hebrew  belief system is about one's own entity their was no God in effect for them. The term to apply at the time of Noah would be Aleph, which means beginning--which in turn would be Adam.   In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Aleph, and the word was Aleph etc. The word is Creation and creation is Adam--so Adam is the word and JC is the same---as representative of Adam, the word. The entire Hebrew history is deciphered from the basis of Creation. Even the New Testament. The time of Noah is deciphered using creation also, just as I did here.  What is taken as animals -see creation, beast of the earth or soul or being. This is documents, histories and records in accordance with creation terms, not Euro terms.  This all happened because the people at that time became overly evil. It's an Armageddon of it's time. The same happens at the end times. But--- destruction in the end tim,es may not be physical---it may be the changing of minds--as in the book death can also mean a changing of the mind when the persons character changes and becomes alive in a new thought system. But, we see it as physical. In which case the change is mental---in other religions it may be seen as the "phoenix rising". Ancient religions also have a physical resurrection that's supposed to happen.      

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: 1- Yup,

Old Seer wrote:

 1- Yup, babies were killed in the flood. Just like when a drone strike takes place- 20 people die along with their kids to kill one "suspected" terrorist. That's in todays world.;

So, all powerful, all knowing, all loving God is as effective as a human operating a machine half in the dark? Awesome.

Not that I'm disagreeing with that interpretation. It's about the only one that makes sense given the story, but that just seems to go against everything most people actually believe about their god. I don't know that I've ever heard anything approaching a real defense for this one, honestly. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

I see why you wanted me to check it out... not one theist answered.  I'll answer the first 2 and see where that goes.  

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

yes.  As far as death is concerned, are you suggesting that they ceased to exist or that they just died in the flood?

Parents are responsible for their children.  In this case, parents brought on a punishment from God that affected their children.  

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

I understand that the flood was not the whole planet, but rather from the perspective of the writer, all that could be seen was flooded.  Science also has gone as far as to say that the world would not necessarily need to be completely buried in water in order to wipe out life.  

When reading these stories, we have to understand that it was from the perspective of a writer either seeing the vision and the writing about it or telling it from their humanistic perspective.  

I remember my town flooded bad one year.  All the businesses were under water, downtown was pretty much wiped out.  The bridges were taken out so there was only one way in and out of town, which was the hill that I happen to live on.  If I didn't have the understanding of the vastness of the planet... or a car to get me beyond the flood zone, I'd be convinced the whole world flooded.  

I do believe the flood of the Bible was much much worse.  To back that claim up even further, archaeology has found evidence of a dramatic flood in that area during that time period.  There is speculation as to whether it really was during the time of Noah or whether it was the flood in question, but there is evidence of a great flood in history that could be compared to the flood of the Bible.  

This understanding would render question 3 invalid.  


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Cap

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

 

Caposkia wrote:

yes.  As far as death is concerned, are you suggesting that they ceased to exist or that they just died in the flood?

Parents are responsible for their children.  In this case, parents brought on a punishment from God that affected their children.  

 

Nice to hear from you again. Do you think your point above constitutes perfect morality - perfect justice? Surely god could have punished the parents and spared the children?

If he could not, was he not able to and thus not all powerful, or did he deliberately not and thus is not all merciful?

Do you really feel comfortable with kids as collateral damage? And what about the rest of life? The biosphere cannot just regenerate if utterly destroyed as the bible story claims. 

Personally, I don't think the flood story reflects a supernatural 'reality' that took place at any time somewhere on Earth. People live by rivers. Rivers flood. 

This story is a myth in my opinion, inherited from the Sumerians who were regularly moistened by the Tigris and Euphrates.

It seems a shame christians feel the need to rationalise the flood tale. 

Anyway. Hope you're well. May Gaia bless you. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Hi Cap, Thank you for

 Hi Cap, Thank you for taking the time to look at this thread and start some discourse on it. I'm keen to discuss these in some detail - picking the first couple is fine - maybe we'll get to the others later (i didn't put them in any particular order of importance).

Please bear with me though, my life is quite busy so I can't always respond as quickly as I'd like to.

 

Before we get into discussions on the two points you answered, could I first just check one aspect of your beliefs? Who do you think wrote the bible? You've alluded many times in the other thread that you consider it to be (100%?) accurate - do you consider it the word of God, i.e. that it was created by God?

These are some quotes from you (For the reference of others):

caposkia wrote:

 http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=5

#282

If you're not willing to accept Biblical truth, you're not willing to accept any rational evidence of demons existing

 

#344

I have yet to see any legitimate scripturally based references proven wrong

 

#373

This brings us to the Bible. This is one of the most difficult things I have found for an atheist to discuss... mainly becasue a lot of them dont' seem to have a clear understanding of it and likely have not learned much about it.  I usually like to start with that.  If I can find a basis for discrediting scripture, we can find a basis for discrediting the possibility of a metaphysical existence be it that it's claimed to be inspired by a metaphysical being.  

 

#382

I've had the order discussion.  There are many reasons why that doesn't suggest the bible is not 100%... at least at that point.  

 

#423

God has explained his plan in the Bible.  It is written so we can all understand it.

You've not directly said that God created or wrote the bible, so perhaps you could let me know what your view is on this point? It will allow me to tailor the discussion regarding your responses to the above points and where we go from here accordingly.

Thanks

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Here&rsquo;s my crack at it,

Here’s my crack at it, despite not being a theist:

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

Sadly yes. YHWH is (apparently) a dick, but it’s okay, because he works in mysterious ways, or something.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

This actually isn’t that big of a deal. If someone is willing to believe in an all-powerful entity that can create everything from nothing, winking some water into and out of existence isn’t really a big deal.

 

 

Now, what I think is a bigger deal, is all of the evidence of the flood that was winked out of existence. Since most Christians believe the path to heaven (and to avoid hell) is to swear an oath of fealty to Jesus (which would require believing in him), one questions the rationale behind intentionally removing evidence of his existence.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?
See #2.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?
This is a good question, and oddly enough, there is a non-zero number of people that believe that the tectonic plate movement that separated Pangaea happened during the flood. I wish I was making this up.

 

Of course, the size of the continents would still be the same, so there would still be an insane distance to traverse. And if God had the foresight to send the animals to Noah in advance, it begs the question of why he allowed this problem to build up in the first place…

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

Good question! Goddidit?

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

Goddidit! Or mana. God did mana. Maybe.

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

Yeah, (referencing #16 ahead of schedule), it’s beginning to get convoluted enough to wonder why he went through all of this trouble. I’m sure he could just keep winking clean water into and out of existence as needed, but… why?

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

Again, barring a very confusing Goddidit, there’s not a good answer, and again… why?

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.
Not only that, but the ratio of herbivores to carnivores you’d need to sustain the populations post-flood would mean they probably needed to get closer to 60 pairs of some of the herbivores. More mana and Goddidit?

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?
See #7.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?
See #8. Also, given the Pangaea explanation I mentioned in #4, one wonders how the plants spread.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?
Another good question. Maybe YHWH willed more people into existence, similar to how Cain when to live with an entire freaking city, despite being one of the first four people in existence.

 

One wonders why the humans willed into existence by YHWY aren’t more obedient.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?
Ironically, Mormonism has an answer to that (albeit a very creepy, racist answer). Well, at least the Native American part.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.
Yeah, I always wondered that, too. Perhaps they were always there, but then he post-hoc declared them to be a sign of some covenant.

 

 

“You see these pine trees? These pine trees are a sign that I will never again destroy the Tower of Babel.”

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

Probably the same reason that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, the genealogy of Jesus, and accounts of what Jesus’ last words were: it’s a poorly edited book written by multiple authors who did not collaborate.

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

Yeah, that’s the best question, really. Once you take into account all of the winking stuff in and out of existence, providing weird contingency plans to fix the various post-flood problems, and then removing all evidence that this even happened in the first place, you have to wonder why he didn’t resolve this in an easier way. Why not simultaneous lightning strikes or heart attacks? Heck, why not even a simple “striking them dead”, as he’s on record for doing in other places of the Old Testament?

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 312
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

Here's what I think theists would HAVE to say (I mean, totally committed Christian creationists when I say Christians in this case, since we're talking literal bible junk...although if it's allegorical and barbaric, why write it in your book Mr and Mrs. Moderate Christians??). I'm doing this because nobody would accept your challenge, and what follows is probably the least crazy that they can sound (with a hint of sarcasm)

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

Everyone is born with original sin. The babies and the unborn were collateral damage. They were not only born with original sin, but the sins of their tribes were too great...and that's hereditary.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

It never rained before the flood. How do you know how much ocean water there was before that? The oceans could very well be a result of the water. It simply ran to the lowest points...and forged the grand canyon.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

You think it's a chore for an omnipotent god that rests after 6 days of work to put up a vapour barrier? He only really had to localize it around Noah too, since he didn't care who died outside of that spot. 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

The giant tortoises micro-evolved (the only REAL evolution) from other tortoise-like creatures.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

Hmm....this one stumps me. This is my first official "because GOD". Perhaps god compelled them to have appetites for other things? Sort of like the T-Rexs on board liked to eat lettuce. Of course, this is not a violation of free will, as he is simply changing what they WANT to do, but they still CHOOSE to do what they want. Of course preventing people from having homicidal, suicidal, homosexual, predatory, self-loathing, compulsions is WAY different. 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

No carnivores...before the fall...flood...umm...short.....CIRCUIT!!!!...UIAHGAEGHOUH!!!!

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

This is GOD's genius. The saturation level of salt in the global flood waters was ideal for both fresh and salt water fish to survive in. If there are any that can't, I'm going to move the goalposts tell you that GOD was sure to separate it, similar to the water vapour problem you mentioned earlier. (phew, getting it back now!) 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

Seeds!!! Adult trees would be fine. They're so robust, because they're made of GODly wood. This is why nobody with a wooden house worries about flooding. It's watertight!

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

C'mon, you know they were all able to reproduce and repopulate the species KINDS just fine. The adults waited patiently for the herbivores to bring forth, heterosexually only of their kind, then did what they had to. It was enough sustenance for sure. Plus, they still had to ween themselves back onto meat after GOD made them temporary herbivores for the ark trip. 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

Already answered. The salt levels were perfect, GODly. Definitely potable.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

How do you know that there were not 800 times more KINDS of plants before? The survivors must be the most resilient. That's how you survive; by being the most resilient. Sort of like...adapting to what's going on. If you couldn't adapt to the flood, then you're toast. That's how GOD designed the system...

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

Contraception must have not existed that long ago. So if you look at the studies, you'll find that in regions of the USA with abstinence only sex-ed, the rate of teenage sexual activity is no different than elsewhere (and of course, you may infer that people in those regions would be more likely to lie on a survey as well). The rate of STIs and unwanted pregnancies are MUCH higher though. So in a hundred years, those 3 women were baby factories. After 14 years (let's not be gross like the Qu'ran) you added 1.5 more baby factories a year. Do the math (because I won't, I already KNOW!)

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

You think that people could build a tower tall enough to piss off GOD almighty, but not a boat?

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

There was no rain before the flood. Your ignorance is ignorant!

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

You're reading it wrong!

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 Because while we're all sinners, the EXTRA sinful people pass on their sinful genes, and have sinful families living in sinful homes with names like sin sinny McSinersonsky! By the way, if God isn't real, why is His name capitalized in your username???  Ok, I'm done now. I really did start this attempting to only add subtle references to it being satirical, but it devolved really quickly. There is a reason no creationist has tackled this. Funny enough, when trying to think like a creationist, it sort of brought me back to how matter of factly my mother told me that "the first people ever were Adam and Eve". It's...frightening!!! 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I alreasdy answered

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 

This was already answered by Old Seer ( Old Seers Corner) in the conversations thread, or "for Arugo" also.

It depends upon "who" interprets the book, and, what the basis of the interpretations is/are.

Or--I already answered this at some post some where.

To put the matter of the bible to rest--- It's been misinterpreted and misunderstood by western culture. The book cannot be interpreted from a western culture minds eye. It's strictly ancient Middle Eastern.

You all have to redo your thinking when it comes to the book. It's not what the common world thinks it is.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 312
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:This was

Old Seer wrote:

This was already answered by Old Seer ( Old Seers Corner) in the conversations thread, or "for Arugo" also.

It depends upon "who" interprets the book, and, what the basis of the interpretations is/are.

Or--I already answered this at some post some where.

To put the matter of the bible to rest--- It's been misinterpreted and misunderstood by western culture. The book cannot be interpreted from a western culture minds eye. It's strictly ancient Middle Eastern.

You all have to redo your thinking when it comes to the book. It's not what the common world thinks it is.

All I read there is "You don't understand it. You can't take it so literally!" I'm clearly interpreting this book wrong in your opinion. But the problem is, nobody has EVER given a concise guide on how to interpret the thing. If I'm wrong and you actually explained anything, please provide a link.

Either way, the original poster provided a concise and specific set of questions. Your answer seems to be that the questions themselves are wrong. That, to me, is a massive cop-out. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Nice to hear from you again. Do you think your point above constitutes perfect morality - perfect justice? Surely god could have punished the parents and spared the children?

If he could not, was he not able to and thus not all powerful, or did he deliberately not and thus is not all merciful?

Children tend to walk in their parents footsteps.  For him to destroy everyone including children was to stop the negative timeline from continuing.  As far as perfect justice is concerned, everyone deserves to die for what we've done in our lives.  What we're seeing due to the fact that we're alive today is mercy and love.  

Does a creator of something not have the right to destroy it as well?  If i make a computer and it's not working the way I want it to, or in a different way than I want it to, do I not have the right to destroy the product and start from scratch if I really want to?  

Atheistextremist wrote:

Do you really feel comfortable with kids as collateral damage? And what about the rest of life? The biosphere cannot just regenerate if utterly destroyed as the bible story claims. 

IF God exists, then he also creates... regardless of what th biosphere is able to do, God is the creator of it and can make it do what He needs it to do.  

Considering kids as collateral damage, are you more comfortable with God destroying all humanity except for kids every so many generations because kids didn't learn from the destruction of their parents?  

Atheistextremist wrote:

Personally, I don't think the flood story reflects a supernatural 'reality' that took place at any time somewhere on Earth. People live by rivers. Rivers flood. 

This story is a myth in my opinion, inherited from the Sumerians who were regularly moistened by the Tigris and Euphrates.

It seems a shame christians feel the need to rationalise the flood tale. 

Anyway. Hope you're well. May Gaia bless you. 

I don't feel the need to rationalize anything.  I was asked by the OP to comment on this thread.  If you want to believe the flood didn't really happen, by all means.  I'll still have a beer, some chips and sleep well tonight. Eye-wink

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Hi Cap, Thank you for taking the time to look at this thread and start some discourse on it. I'm keen to discuss these in some detail - picking the first couple is fine - maybe we'll get to the others later (i didn't put them in any particular order of importance).

Please bear with me though, my life is quite busy so I can't always respond as quickly as I'd like to.

 

Before we get into discussions on the two points you answered, could I first just check one aspect of your beliefs? Who do you think wrote the bible? You've alluded many times in the other thread that you consider it to be (100%?) accurate - do you consider it the word of God, i.e. that it was created by God?

You've not directly said that God created or wrote the bible, so perhaps you could let me know what your view is on this point? It will allow me to tailor the discussion regarding your responses to the above points and where we go from here accordingly.

Thanks

 

Sure.. and take your time.  My life is busy as well.  I understand.

I feel the Bible is inspired by God, but written by His faithful followers.  That said, though they wrote it down as accurately as they understood, they didn't always understand everything they wrote and minor details like a number of people in a given situation and/or a particular date or name of location can be a bit off as well.  None of that information I have found discredits any of the stories.  Rather it helps validate them be it that those errors are congruent with many historical documents of the time. I find it important to note that numbers or dates aren't explicitly accurate be it that many atheists try to use that as an excuse to discredit the whole story.  If that was a means to discredit the Bbile, then most of history as we understand it would also have to be discredited before a certain time period. Be it that most people during those times were not privy to dating and necessarily what historically to them took place when they were writing it down.  


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:As far as

caposkia wrote:

As far as perfect justice is concerned, everyone deserves to die for what we've done in our lives.  What we're seeing due to the fact that we're alive today is mercy and love.

That you seriously think everyone deserves to die is both sickening and saddening...

 

caposkia wrote:

Does a creator of something not have the right to destroy it as well?  If i make a computer and it's not working the way I want it to, or in a different way than I want it to, do I not have the right to destroy the product and start from scratch if I really want to?

Not if the creation is a self-aware life-form.

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Children tend

caposkia wrote:

Children tend to walk in their parents footsteps.  For him to destroy everyone including children was to stop the negative timeline from continuing.  As far as perfect justice is concerned, everyone deserves to die for what we've done in our lives.  What we're seeing due to the fact that we're alive today is mercy and love.  

Does a creator of something not have the right to destroy it as well?  If i make a computer and it's not working the way I want it to, or in a different way than I want it to, do I not have the right to destroy the product and start from scratch if I really want to?  

That's just creepy, and it's one of the biggest pet peeves I have with Christian morality. It completely devalues human life in an attempt to rationalize some barbaric mythology, and it tends to lead to a lot of Blaming the Victim. At least most Christians don't believe they have the right to kill other people themselves; they just think that it's okay if God does, regardless of the reason.


 

caposkia wrote:
IF God exists, then he also creates... regardless of what th biosphere is able to do, God is the creator of it and can make it do what He needs it to do.  

Considering kids as collateral damage, are you more comfortable with God destroying all humanity except for kids every so many generations because kids didn't learn from the destruction of their parents?  

If there were a truly compassionate, all-powerful god out there, and he were capable of pulling off a hugely complex, convoluted plan to kill all the wicked people, I'd like to think he'd take the time of day to look out for the people who weren't yet wicked. I mean, if he can sustain all the animals that came off the ark with no food, why couldn't he care for a generation of children? This isn't even a case of collateral damage. YHWH wanted those children to drown.

Of course, YHWH never comes off as infinitely compassionate as he's portrayed in the New Testament, but that's because who and what he is has changed with the religion, morphing him from a war god to a savior father-figure. It's just the followers are left with the baggage of trying to reconcile all that war god stuff with the father-figure stuff.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 1) baby killing. You

 1) baby killing.

You answered: yes to "Is God an innocent baby killer?" 

 

Happy to move on with this as a final answer... It doesn't make him seem like a particularly benevolent being though.

 

Aside:

Quote:
Does a creator of something not have the right to destroy it as well?

Does the mother of a child have the right to kill their child? Not in modern morality both within and without Christianity, so this amounts to special pleading  for extra rights for your god. He's obviously not subject to the laws he created for us I suppose. Bit of a hypocrite...

 

 

 

2) Where did all the water come from and disappear to?

You answered (paraphrasing): It wasn't the whole earth. 

This is strange. Did God wipe out all humanity apart from Noah and his family, or not? (Your point about not needing the whole earth under water to wipe out life is immaterial - even supposing the flood was only enough to wipe out all life, and didn't rise above the tops of all the mountains on earth, as the bible states, there would still need to be a truly huge amount of water which has somehow disappeared (I would dispute that science says it's possible to wipe out life by flooding in any case - whether or not the flood is higher than the tallest mountains, but that's another aside.).

It seems that either there was enough water to wipe out all life, or not all life was wiped out. 

But the Bible clearly says ALL life over the whole world was destroyed. a flood localised in the area around Mt Ararat would have absolutely no consequences for people or animals living in Africa, The americas, Australia, the UK...

Ok, so the bible was written by followers of your god as faithfully as they could. Be that as it may, in order for the flood to be worth doing by your god, it must have been severe enough to kill all life. That means a LOT of excess water. My question still stands - where did all the water come from and disappear to? Or do you think maybe not all life was actually wiped out after all?

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I found my post

on this. It's post 14 on this thread. I couldn't remember where.  No cop out--- there's only 2 possible ways to interpret the book, from a material (superficial) mind or a spiritual mind.  The world interprets from the material/physical minds eye. The book is correct from the spiritual eye. Starting at creation isn't the making of a material universe. There's many ways to interpret the book from the physical/material minds eye---there's only one from the spiritual eye. The "Smurfs" (our team of bible interpreters) uses the spiritual--it's a different story from our interpretation, which is correct---the other is false. That is why you are all having such troubles with it. Go ours and you've got it right. See Old Seer's Corner and For Arugo threads in the General conversations forum.  Only one interpretaion can be true, ours or their,s or  "whoever"  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Quite correctish

Our interpretation works. The proper interpretation  has finally arrived. It is contrary every other interpretation. The Euros got it wrong. And---since the fall of the Adomites the Jews have had it wrong also. It's reasonable when one sees that the fall is the loss of what was understood.  Technically, the loss of the knowledge of God, or particularly- the loss of the understanding of one's self, which in the original knowledge Adam was God, which also means that the knowledge of Gos is also knowledge of the self. There is no free standing God  in the3 universe or the book. Atheists are correct--- there is no, nor never was any God, as claimed in the world today or ever was. In the book "people" are God. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God---that's the Adamites.   See Gospel of John. There' is no such God in the book as the Pope believes (for instance)  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1470
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
We will come rejoicing Bring in the Sheaves . .

Within the Hymn -- Bring in the Sheafs of Jesus (as the Christ was consider) the first Fruits, celebrated in Passorver 14-21. That time of year where farms would offer the first fruits is Mar/Apr Nisan New Years Hebrew Calendar
Old Seer do you care to expound a bit ??? If you could find the time, please. .

Old Seer wrote:

Our interpretation works. The proper interpretation  has finally arrived. It is contrary every other interpretation. The Euros got it wrong. And---since the fall of the Adomites the Jews have had it wrong also. It's reasonable when one sees that the fall is the loss of what was understood.  Technically, the loss of the knowledge of God, or particularly- the loss of the understanding of one's self, which in the original knowledge Adam was God, which also means that the knowledge of Gos is also knowledge of the self. There is no free standing God  in the3 universe or the book. Atheists are correct--- there is no, nor never was any God, as claimed in the world today or ever was. In the book "people" are God. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God---that's the Adamites.   See Gospel of John. There' is no such God in the book as the Pope believes (for instance)  Smiling


Christian Hymnal remember the hymn Bring in the Sheaves
Now Christ I Cor 15:20-23 has become FirstFruits of those that came in the General Resurrection Seder and Passover Lamb!!

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Him and Sons and Daughters in Christ.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9

New Living Translation -NIV Bible
And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us.
{Book of Roman says:}:
And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly to be release from sin and suffering for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Im really having problems here.

danatemporary wrote:
Old Seer wrote:

Our interpretation works. The proper interpretation  has finally arrived. It is contrary every other interpretation. The Euros got it wrong. And---since the fall of the Adomites the Jews have had it wrong also. It's reasonable when one sees that the fall is the loss of what was understood.  Technically, the loss of the knowledge of God, or particularly- the loss of the understanding of one's self, which in the original knowledge Adam was God, which also means that the knowledge of Gos is also knowledge of the self. There is no free standing God  in the3 universe or the book. Atheists are correct--- there is no, nor never was any God, as claimed in the world today or ever was. In the book "people" are God. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God---that's the Adamites.   See Gospel of John. There' is no such God in the book as the Pope believes (for instance)  Smiling

Christian Hymnal remember the hymn Bring in the Sheaves Bring in the Sheafs of Jesus (as the Christ was consider) the first Fruits, celebrated in Passorver 14-21. That time of year were farms would offer the first fruits is Mar/Apr Nisan New Years Hebrew Calendar Old Seer do you care to expound a bit ???http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9 New Living Translation And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us. {Book of Roman says:}: And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Of course that is to be expected. What we have is out of the ordinary that is for sure. But--I find I have to keep posting the same things many times on different forums. Not to complain, mind you, but it gets to be a chore. I was hoping to be long gone--but- I got a note from Alpha Smurf to look at the latest post on this form- (I don't know why) so I showed up again. I don't know any more about those hymns and stuff. The last hymn for me was a bit before USMC Boot Camp and haven't sung one since other then the USMC genuine regulation hymn. Smiling  I don't know what I was directed here for, it wasn't said. Maybe I was supposed to clarify something---can't find what.

What would you have me expound on ?

I was asked tuther day by a fella in town if Gays will be saved. ?????? Good question.  My answer was---it all gets settled at Armageddon. If gay gets you taken away at that time then it was wrong. But-- It's a question of how superficial one is after the knowing is over. The superficial  also includes the heterosexual. It's a matter of how the physical is determined in one's self.  We've determined that there isn't anything physically or materially right or wrong, it's a matter of degree on how intense one allows it to operate one's person. That is---does it cause one to be dragged away from proper humanity into a condition of mental harm. It's refered to in the book as "carnal" or "flesh" minded. That's both hetero and Homo. In the final tally---can a Gay be saved--we say yes, but it'll be a tuff boat to row, same as to much hetero will cause the same.

As said previous---the flood of Noah's time was a mini Armageddon of it's time. That's how evil floks can become---to a point of self destruction---that will happen again-next time world over. We can see it in progress.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1470
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Partional Follow Up on JC and Death ; Christ & Death ???

Nu 31
With your permission (could you explain only a bit further) ?

(?) What does the New Testament Canonical Books teach about Christ and the victory and triumph (according to the Smurfdom) then ..

Old Seer wrote:

(?)
Old Seer Wrote :: 'It is greater to be alive then dead..'.The
fall of man creates death . . Resurrection re-establishes it,. It is
greater to be alive then dead. The dead are conscious of nothing. You
said, If death were greater, then JC would have remained dead. So,
continuing, 'JC is therefore greater than the fall ..' (in your estimation)?

.. ... ..

Old Seer wrote:
.. given up and no longer pursued. The ten are what we refer to as "forensic or material/physical/superficial law. Christians follow the inner, or, spiritual law. There-fore as he points out-they are neither married or given in marriage, that is, they are together under their own permissions.

Old Seer wrote:

..The dead are conscious of nothing.

Sorry DP (Double Post)

==============================================================================================

Old Seer wrote:
.. given up and no longer pursued. The ten are what we refer to as "forensic or material/physical/superficial law. Christians follow the inner, or, spiritual law. There-fore as he points out-they are neither married or given in marriage, that is, they are together under their own permissions.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
One thing that erks me

danatemporary wrote:
Nu 31 With your permission (could you explain only a bit further) ?

 

(?) What does the New Testament Canonical Books teach about Christ and the victory and triumph (according to the Smurfdom) then ..

Old Seer wrote:
(?) Old Seer Wrote :: 'It is greater to be alive then dead..'.The fall of man creates death . . Resurrection re-establishes it,. It is greater to be alive then dead. The dead are conscious of nothing. You said, If death were greater, then JC would have remained dead. So, continuing, 'JC is therefore greater than the fall ..' (in your estimation)?
.. ... ..
Old Seer wrote:
.. given up and no longer pursued. The ten are what we refer to as "forensic or material/physical/superficial law. Christians follow the inner, or, spiritual law. There-fore as he points out-they are neither married or given in marriage, that is, they are together under their own permissions.
Old Seer wrote:
..The dead are conscious of nothing.

Sorry DP (Double Post)

==============================================================================================

Old Seer wrote:
.. given up and no longer pursued. The ten are what we refer to as "forensic or material/physical/superficial law. Christians follow the inner, or, spiritual law. There-fore as he points out-they are neither married or given in marriage, that is, they are together under their own permissions.

Is when I have to read the book. It's boring and I'm tired of the thing---BUT---where obligations are is where they are. I take things pff the top and stay out of the book unless necessary, and of course our interpretations are known to us so we don't need the book to much any more.

OK-- Death and JC. ----This was one thing that baffled me. Why start a new religion and then get yourself killed, it didn't make sense. It makes more sense to stay alive and help out rather then getting killed---right. And then be resurrected and take off leaving everyone hanging in mid air---don't make no sense does it. It turns out this is where more then one brain is needed to understand things, hence, inadvertently the Smurfs form.

Here's the deal. Someone has to show that everlasting life is a fact- (or at least a possibility to a doubter) that's what JC,s job was. IF, Adam wasn't to die unless undergoing a fall then how can we know possibilities. Someone has to come and show how and why. Remember now---as far as can be known it's the Adamites that figured this out,--what state of mind causes this. So, being that it became lost via the fall it needs to be re-instated. That's what JC is all about. Now it starts making sense. If it is possible to "not die" then how can we know---and---if someone already figured that out and lost it---how can it be eventually for future generations. In walks JC with that info, as he is representative of the Adamites.  The prime moving force of Christianity (Adamism so to speak) is to beat death.

Universal construction dictates opposites. If there is everlasting death then there must be everlasting life. If so, the trick is to figure out how. From what we can see it caused by becoming an elevated being (as biblical evidence points to). An elevated being is nothing more then "human", which is a higher being then Animal. You say you're human----think again. You are jn possession of it but that not what you're living by and under. The opposite of Human is animal, and from the animal mind is death ( I'm not saying this is right or wrong---I'm interjecting biblical christian forum). The elevated condition is "humam" the lower form is animal. Now---Those that became Adamites were no different then we today--until they sat down and figures themselves out-as to---what am I. When doing that they divide (ultimatly) their persons into two knowleges. The knowleges of good and evil. They choose the good--Human. From that then comes Adam, ( biblical creation is that process-the forming of Adam) and that is supposed to be where everlasting life is acquired.

That is the job JC had, to make aware of "the self", and change to human. But--again it was lost about 100 AD, and as predicted by JC, that would happen, and at about the end time (he says) some body is going to get it figured out. Somebodies did. 

The common mental concept is--that we are human---yes we have it (same as Christianity-everyone has it) but that's not what the world runs on. The world operates on the animal concept while using both. The human side has become subserveant to the animal side. Here's how it's been working-- Business as it presently is , is a predator system. (be aware tho that business need not be worked off the animal side). Predator belongs on the animal side. What do you see when walking into Walmart- smiling faces of store staff and operators, right. (It's OK, it should be that way) What you're seeing is a human face, pleasant and likable, the same as Christianity, it's the Christian face  Smiling . BUT, what's hiding behind the face-the business animal, (predator) right. (consider Wall Street, Wow)

That in essence is the story of life in man-made world. There is no way peace can be made with that kind of thinking---and that what the book is for---to remove the systems as is and replace them with----HUMAN, instead of a huma'animal concept that simply isn't true. There is no such thing as a humananimal. No one (including me and the Smurfs) can be human and animal at the same instant. At any given moment a person can be only one of those----and it's a matter of choice, Choose one or the other to make peace on this planet. Humananimal is a lie, and the mental concept is what's causing all the interactive and social problems of the world, and id forwarded by religion---And---GOVERNMENTS, not just what is considered religion.

The book predicts that this change WILL take place when the masses know the means (the end times). What manner of sense can it be that when people know this present concept will never work to be at peace to keep going with it. Once it's understood then one has to go with it, and doing so one becomes blamless of the worlds consequences, as one cannot be guilty of any out comes from the present mental condition. The knowledge of person demands change. One can have no complaint when knowing and still insist on continuation of present nonsense. Civilization is a concept of fixing the animal it demands the people to be---It's an impossibility and can't be done. Animal is animal and there;s no such thing as fixing an animal to make it human. The animal cannot be fixed and civilization operates and exists within the animal mind. Change the mind and one's world is changed. Everyone change their mind and the whole world is changed. This is the goal of JC. JC is an Adamite- that which is human.

So, lets say that there's no way to live forever---OK, but in any regards why keep going with this present idea. According to us Smurfs--it is better to live in peace and die rather in constant war and social turmoil and then die. Something similar to Pascal's wager.

These are things each person will have to ponder. shall I go right, or shall I go left.; To go left is encountering the time of Noah again. To go right is avoiding it. Hummmm--it's a personal thing isn't it. Shall we be animal when knowing better--or---or---it's the time of trial from Rev.

So (again) Lets look at living for ever. The smurfs don't know how that comes about, but it has to do with states of mind. For instance--Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I have a touch of it myself. When a mental catastropy tkes place it causes an effect on the body. In my case rythemics are out of order and have a problem with keeping time to music. A mental condition cause it. Now- if a mental catastrophy can cause a physical condition why can't a positive mental condition heal the body. From the book we recognize it to mean that everlasting life comes from a mental condition. Universal construction dictates opposites. So, Why can't it be. We don't know but are sure trying to find out, anyway, what's wrong with living at peace. \

The Fall--The fall is nothing more then returning to the animal state of mind--that is-back to the lessor/lower being. Believe it or not--civilization regards the animal to be of the higher being. Check it out, you'll find it to be true. Dust of the ground denote being blown by the wind in any direction rather then straight forward or solid--dust relates to unidirectional. From dust you are and to dust you have returned (Genesis). JC is greater then the fall if one wants the human to be greater then the animal because JC represents the himan characters over the animal---thus--the fall is a return to animal, therefore human is greater then animal---in his (the Christian) world.

The dead are concious of nothing. Yes--dead id dead, no brain working is no person present. The only thing going for the dead is the memory of the living. We thing from that memory one is resurrected. That means (if true) one needs to be careful of what manner of relations one has with others---it is they that will decide yes or no for resurrection.  There is also (according to an Apostle) those that make the change and don,t die during the end times. Of course that's what the end times are---the time of change and it's consequences.

The 10 commandments are moot, ex post facto. They are civil laws. Christians (humans) don't need civil law. civil law merely controls the animal. Moses institutes civilization---not Christianity. be careful with the term "law" as applied in the book. There's civil law and natural law. JC refers mostly to natural law which is creation-the law of the beginning which is no made by anyone butthe nature of life (mental) itself. Forget the 10, they don't apply in the next world. Civil law is contrary to natural law and therefore contrary to Christianity. Civl law maintains one within the animal concept. It creates one to it's specs and then regulates the degree that one is the animal. Normally civil law works through or via the material and physical. the mental is toward the animal in terms of greaters and lessors.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 As two of the least

 As two of the least decipherable people on this board, would you mind awfully taking your discussion to another thread? i'd like to keep this one clean regarding discussion of the flood. There have been enough Old Seer hijackings  - I've read through hundreds of your posts, and I have to say... it all makes very little sense.

 

Thanks!

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:That you

blacklight915 wrote:

That you seriously think everyone deserves to die is both sickening and saddening...

Understanding that the wage of sin is death, there's no other way to look at it.  We don't fully understand the spiritual rammifications of sin.  We put categorical significance to wrongdoings on Earth which then makes it look appauling to suggest that we deserve death.  Just because we see many things as insignificant doesn't mean they are.

You have to remember though that because of Jesus' death, we have life.  It's understanding why He had to die for you.  

blacklight915 wrote:
 

Not if the creation is a self-aware life-form.

Why does that make a difference?  Are you suggesting that as long as creation is not aware, it's ok to destroy it?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote: That's

RobbyPants wrote:

 That's just creepy, and it's one of the biggest pet peeves I have with Christian morality. It completely devalues human life in an attempt to rationalize some barbaric mythology, and it tends to lead to a lot of Blaming the Victim. At least most Christians don't believe they have the right to kill other people themselves; they just think that it's okay if God does, regardless of the reason.

You see it as a devalue, I see it as putting more value on it.  To suggest that consequence is death is to value the life you have and lead it as if it is a gift, which it is.  This is also not a rationalization for a barbaric mythology.  It's putting it in perspective.  

you are also looking at death as the end of everything for that person.  It's not.  What you're suggesting is that no criminals should be held accountable for their wrongdoings... worse yet, this perspective suggests to not even jail criminals, but let them continue to do what they do.    Death in the spiritual sense is like jail.  it's prevents the person from continuing to do their crimes and causes them to wait until judgement.  It's like jail without bail.  It does not suggest this person is gone forever.

RobbyPants wrote:
If there were a truly compassionate, all-powerful god out there, and he were capable of pulling off a hugely complex, convoluted plan to kill all the wicked people, I'd like to think he'd take the time of day to look out for the people who weren't yet wicked. I mean, if he can sustain all the animals that came off the ark with no food, why couldn't he care for a generation of children? This isn't even a case of collateral damage. YHWH wanted those children to drown.

Of course, YHWH never comes off as infinitely compassionate as he's portrayed in the New Testament, but that's because who and what he is has changed with the religion, morphing him from a war god to a savior father-figure. It's just the followers are left with the baggage of trying to reconcile all that war god stuff with the father-figure stuff.

I'm not trying to reconcile any of it.  The fact that Jesus died the way He did suggests God is still the same and has not changed anything about the laws.  God is compassionate because he gave us all a way out through Jesus.  But God is also just.  He holds us accountable for our actions good and bad.  Most people want to believe they're good, but when you reflect, you realize you've done many things wrong in life.  Consider if you did it all at once.. you'd probably be considered the worst person alive.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote: 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Quote:
Does a creator of something not have the right to destroy it as well?

Does the mother of a child have the right to kill their child? Not in modern morality both within and without Christianity, so this amounts to special pleading  for extra rights for your god. He's obviously not subject to the laws he created for us I suppose. Bit of a hypocrite...

parents do it all the time, it's called abortion.  

as far as God killing, He is the king, so He would be above the law, but at the same time, people have the right to kill someone who has killed others or to discipline others who commit terrible crimes.  He is being a judge, not a murderer... unless you consider all judges that have sentenced someone to death murderers.  

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

2) Where did all the water come from and disappear to?

You answered (paraphrasing): It wasn't the whole earth. 

This is strange. Did God wipe out all humanity apart from Noah and his family, or not? (Your point about not needing the whole earth under water to wipe out life is immaterial - even supposing the flood was only enough to wipe out all life, and didn't rise above the tops of all the mountains on earth, as the bible states, there would still need to be a truly huge amount of water which has somehow disappeared (I would dispute that science says it's possible to wipe out life by flooding in any case - whether or not the flood is higher than the tallest mountains, but that's another aside.).

It seems that either there was enough water to wipe out all life, or not all life was wiped out. 

there was enough water

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

But the Bible clearly says ALL life over the whole world was destroyed. a flood localised in the area around Mt Ararat would have absolutely no consequences for people or animals living in Africa, The americas, Australia, the UK...

Ok, so the bible was written by followers of your god as faithfully as they could. Be that as it may, in order for the flood to be worth doing by your god, it must have been severe enough to kill all life. That means a LOT of excess water. My question still stands - where did all the water come from and disappear to? Or do you think maybe not all life was actually wiped out after all?

 

It sounds like all life was wiped out, but then again, I do see evidence that it was localized to a specific region... this woudl still cover probably thousands of miles, but it is possible that not literally all life everywhere was killed... as far as humans were concerned, all human life was understood to be wiped out.  this took place far enough back to suggest that people had not yet migrated to the Americas.  History shows that people in the americas came in much later and traveled from Asia over the frozen waters to Alaska.  


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The input on this thread

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 As two of the least decipherable people on this board, would you mind awfully taking your discussion to another thread? i'd like to keep this one clean regarding discussion of the flood. There have been enough Old Seer hijackings  - I've read through hundreds of your posts, and I have to say... it all makes very little sense.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Is going in all directions. I did not hijack the thread--I responded to a question directly to me. I have never hijacked a thread that I know of (may have) I merely respond to an entry toward me. If you go back to post 14 on this thread ---can you dispute that entry by me, if so lets converse on it. if you say it's bullshit --you're not thinking. Just because you don't understand my input doesn't mean it's wrong, you simply may not understand it. What can you find wrong with post 14 other then -it don't make sense to you. If so, and the other other interpretation don't make sense---why argue either one. You'll notice I don't argue the other---because it don't make sense.  Why  discuss  something senseless. We don't argue with the pope--he's wrong.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1470
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ian Button It Right NOW !! (NO MORE)!!

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 As two of the least decipherable people on this board, would you mind awfully taking your discussion to another thread? i'd like to keep this one clean regarding discussion of the flood. There have been enough Old Seer hijackings  - I've read through hundreds of your posts, and I have to say... it all makes very little sense.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Ian button it right now !! No-one is obligated to a thing; you will do well to remember this from now on !!

¬ Dana


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Are you

caposkia wrote:

Are you suggesting that as long as creation is not aware, it's ok to destroy it?

As long as the creation is not alive or aware, yes.

 

caposkia wrote:

Why does that make a difference?

Because things that are not alive or aware cannot suffer or feel pain.

 

caposkia wrote:

Understanding that the wage of sin is death, there's no other way to look at it.  We don't fully understand the spiritual rammifications of sin.  We put categorical significance to wrongdoings on Earth which then makes it look appauling to suggest that we deserve death.  Just because we see many things as insignificant doesn't mean they are.

If actions that cause insignificant harm on Earth cause significant damage in/to the spiritual realm, then God should have really set things up differently.

 

caposkia wrote:

It's understanding why He had to die for you.

Because God created a stupid system which He refused to change.

I am somewhat grateful he took the time and effort to find a loophole and save some people from eternal torture. However, I have serious problems with the fact He allows other people to be tortured forever.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:As long

blacklight915 wrote:

As long as the creation is not alive or aware, yes.

ah, now we add a twist... ALIVE or aware.  Though some might consider a computer alive because it is able to think... though of course it doesn't have feelings.  Some take living as able to move on its own.  that would be anything with batteries really.  

However, you I'm sure are being quite selective... probably even bias as to which "alive" things we're talking about.. namely what you and I are.  Considering we have never made anything alive in the sense that we are living.. or anything that can be aware, how can we decide it's not ok for God to destroy something like that when we destroy everything we create... at least at some point in its existence?  

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Because things that are not alive or aware cannot suffer or feel pain.

how do you know being destroyed is suffering or even painful?  Typically when someone gets knocked out, they don't feel the pain until they wake up.  My guess is being destroyed is the same way... except you don't wake up from it.  

To be aware of suffering and pain is to be alive, not destroyed.  

blacklight915 wrote:

If actions that cause insignificant harm on Earth cause significant damage in/to the spiritual realm, then God should have really set things up differently.

It's not so much that it does significant harm to the spiritual realm, rather the harm is to your own spirit.  Considering the insignificant on Earth, things we consider insignificant today.. e.g. lying, adultery (by Biblical standards) etc.  were not considered insignificant by most cultures until more recently in human history.  Seems we shouldn't have changed things rather than God setting things up differently.

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

It's understanding why He had to die for you.

Because God created a stupid system which He refused to change.

yea, very stupid of God to make a system that make us face consequences for our actions.  What was He thinking... good thing we don't have a system like that running on Earth... oh.. wait... we do....

blacklight915 wrote:

I am somewhat grateful he took the time and effort to find a loophole and save some people from eternal torture. However, I have serious problems with the fact He allows other people to be tortured forever.

I have a more serious problem with the fact that those people choose that fate.  I don't understand why people would do that to themselves.  

Also we should consider what you mean by tortured.  How exactly are people "tortured" forever?  I mean what happens to them in your understanding?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:However, you

caposkia wrote:

However, you I'm sure are being quite selective... probably even bias as to which "alive" things we're talking about.. namely what you and I are.  Considering we have never made anything alive in the sense that we are living.. or anything that can be aware, how can we decide it's not ok for God to destroy something like that when we destroy everything we create... at least at some point in its existence?  

That is a moral question we very well will have to answer soon. It is quite likely that humans will create a complex lifeform from scratch in the not so distant future. Perhaps even during our lifetimes. Even if we fail at making an actual biological life, it is not inconceivable that we will build a computer capable of being self aware and capable of having emotions. When that happens, will you support the morality of killing it simply because we made it?  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 738
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What I'll do is

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 As two of the least decipherable people on this board, would you mind awfully taking your discussion to another thread? i'd like to keep this one clean regarding discussion of the flood. There have been enough Old Seer hijackings  - I've read through hundreds of your posts, and I have to say... it all makes very little sense.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Is going in all directions. I did not hijack the thread--I responded to a question directly to me. I have never hijacked a thread that I know of (may have) I merely respond to an entry toward me. If you go back to post 14 on this thread ---can you dispute that entry by me, if so lets converse on it. if you say it's bullshit --you're not thinking. Just because you don't understand my input doesn't mean it's wrong, you simply may not understand it. What can you find wrong with post 14 other then -it don't make sense to you. If so, and the other other interpretation don't make sense---why argue either one. You'll notice I don't argue the other---because it don't make sense.  Why  discuss  something senseless. We don't argue with the pope--he's wrong.

When asked a question that is off topic on a  forum or thread is refer the poster to The Seer's Corner and answer it there. I don't like the idea of having my own forum but the past also dictates it's the best thing to do to avoid these situations.    I don't highjack threads but my history shows I do cause others to. Actually, I was asked to take a look at this thread (for whatever reason) causing me to think it was a new thread. I couldn't remember where on the forums I responded to the biblical flood, but later found it was this thread-then I realized this is an older thread. So--off I go for a while---again.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yea, very

caposkia wrote:

yea, very stupid of God to make a system that make us face consequences for our actions.  What was He thinking... good thing we don't have a system like that running on Earth... oh.. wait... we do....

If and when I meet your God, I hope He isn't as much of an ass as you are.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That is

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is a moral question we very well will have to answer soon. It is quite likely that humans will create a complex lifeform from scratch in the not so distant future. Perhaps even during our lifetimes. Even if we fail at making an actual biological life, it is not inconceivable that we will build a computer capable of being self aware and capable of having emotions. When that happens, will you support the morality of killing it simply because we made it?  

be it that God isn't destroying people just because He made them, that might be irrelevant to the conversation.  However, consider the movie scenario where this intelligent life decides to rebel against its creator.. then what?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

yea, very stupid of God to make a system that make us face consequences for our actions.  What was He thinking... good thing we don't have a system like that running on Earth... oh.. wait... we do....

If and when I meet your God, I hope He isn't as much of an ass as you are.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way about me.  I didn't mean it to be mean, just sarcastic in a comical way.  I hope you saw my point though despite how you thought I was being.  I will try to be careful not to be sarcastic when replying to you if that's how you're going to take it.  Sorry again.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm sorry you

caposkia wrote:
I'm sorry you feel that way about me.  I didn't mean it to be mean, just sarcastic in a comical way.  I hope you saw my point though despite how you thought I was being.  I will try to be careful not to be sarcastic when replying to you if that's how you're going to take it.  Sorry again.

Blacklight has a medical psychological condition, and doesn't always read things the way they were intended to be read. Subtle things like sarcasm can be lost in translation. Just take care to be be specific and blunt. He's a smart guy, he just has a disability.

Apologies to you, Blacklight, if you don't appreciate the interference here. I can delete this if you like. I assume it's ok because you mentioned it in a previous thread.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:be it that

caposkia wrote:

be it that God isn't destroying people just because He made them, that might be irrelevant to the conversation.  However, consider the movie scenario where this intelligent life decides to rebel against its creator.. then what?  

In general I support the rebelling side of all rebellions. If a being is intelligent enough to decide to live outside of an authority, it ought to have the right to do so. Preferably without violence. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 312
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Urgh, I had some computer

Urgh, I had some computer problems, but I'm back now. 

caposkia wrote:

Children tend to walk in their parents footsteps.  For him to destroy everyone including children was to stop the negative timeline from continuing.  

Yes, children tend to. However, in this story, you've already slaughtered their parents. Perhaps you, with god on your side, would be fit to raise these children properly. The infants probably wouldn't have picked up any evil habits from their parents yet, so you have a clean slate here. Of course, in that time and place, people might be inclined to believe cursed or eternally sinful bloodlines. With such beliefs, you could potentially justify murdering an infant. Without such insane beliefs, such a disgusting thing is simply not justifiable in any way shape or form. Ever! 

Plus, infants, toddlers, children, who cares about the difference? At a young age they likely could not be guilty of a deliberate war against god and his ways. However, this omnipotent god still couldn't figure out any solution other than "SLAUGHTER THEM ALL!!!"

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2366
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

                  I noticed you joined us on April 21, 2012,  so Happy one year anniversory and may there be meny more!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?