Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
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?

 

 

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

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.

It is true that if you consider people to be immortal, then it gives you a different perspective on life on Earth. That being said, you would also value that life less, as whatever happens here on Earth is far less important than what happens for all eternity. So, by definition, that outlook will devalue human life.

 

Where did I say that criminals shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions? How did you get that out of:

  • This belief structure devalues human life.
  • It leads people to blame the victim.
  • Most Christians don’t think it’s okay for them to kill people.
  • Most Christians think it’s okay for God to kill people.


caposkia wrote:

 

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.  

You and I have very different concepts of “just”. Torturing someone for infinity years based on actions they took in this life based on incomplete information hardly seems just.

 

Also, I don’t see what the point is in saying that if you take all of the bad someone did over their life and applied it to one instance, that it’d make them the worst person ever. So? If you took all the weight I’ve lifted over my life and applied it to one lift, I’d be the strongest person ever. If you take all the good, I’d be the best person ever. What’s the point in taking time out of the equation when looking at many events over time?

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Why thank you! I haven't popped by as often as I'd like to lately, but I've enjoyed my time here! I'll be around certainly!

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.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia 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.  

OK, so you're pro-abortion. That's nice. (ok for God=Ok for humans by your reasoning.)

However, I would still question his judgement of new born babies as deserving death... but you've already agreed that he's a baby killer, so let's move on. I don't want to turn this thread into an abortion debate, so won't comment on this further.

caposkia wrote:

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.  

 

Hold on.. So there was enough water to wipe out all life on earth, but the flooding was localised to a specific region? How does that work?

You allow that possibly not all life was wiped out, but all humans definitely were. This would mean that all humans were living within a couple of thousand miles of Mt Ararat at the time... so no humans in the America, Australia, the far East or Africa - is that right? Even the UK is over 2,000 miles away and in a completely different aquatic area - did the flood extend this far?

 Let's ignore humans for the moment - Was all other life wiped out or not? You say maybe not, which means the bible is wrong then, as it says quite clearly several times that all life will be exterminated, i.e. 

 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." 

 If you don't mind, let's expand this to Q4 - how did the animals get to the Ark? Couple of examples: Giant tortoises in the Galapagos (can't swim) and Kangaroos (there's no land bridge from Australia...) So the possible answers given your previous statements appear to be:

a) the floods didn't reach that far, the bible is incorrect.

b) water killed all life - the animals travelled to the ark (please expand how).

 If you have an alternative explanation, please let me know.

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Is going in

Old Seer wrote:

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. 

Your first post did indeed answer the OP, but you went off topic, without provocation on post 28.. Which Dana picked up and ran with. No threats please Dana... OR ELSE!

 

(Dana, I'm fairly sure you use stream of consciousness as a deliberate tool on these boards, but you must admit to it being somewhat confusing at times, to those who can't read your mind... You're certainly not obligated to do anything here, but as OP I am also allowed to make a gentle request to stay on target re the discussion on this thread..)


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
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.

I knew you were being sarcastic, caposkia--I just didn't find it funny. Did you know I was being completely serious and sincere when I said "because God created a stupid system which He refuses to change"?

Honestly? Other than mocking me, I didn't realize your statement HAD a point. So...sorry about that... Will you please explain to me exactly what your point was? I'd really appreciate it.

What really bothers me about you, caposkia, is the you seem to seriously think people deserve to suffer for eternity with no chance of escape. Do you understand just how mind-blowingly f*cked up and evil that is?

 

Vastet wrote:

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.

Oh, no, I don't mind at all. In fact, I very much appreciate it. Thank you! 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
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.

I understand, thank you


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

 

Being outside an authority is one thing, but our problem is we are a creation of the authority in question who lives and utilizes everything it created.  In other words, what you'd be asking to do is rebel against the very entity not only that created you, but that made everything you know to be real.  So rebel, but he still has to allow you to use his stuff??? That doesn't seem right.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Urgh, I

Jabberwocky wrote:

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!!!"

The point here is we don't know what God knew about those people and who existed and what age.  What we do know is that the Bible makes it clear that people became so "evil" that God regretted ever making them in the first place... His plan was to erase humanity from the face of the Earth... proabably to never make them again.  The solution wasn't really a solution to a problem as you're looking at it... God was basically going to scrap the human blueprint because it wasn't working.  They were in essence destroying everything else He had worked so hard to create.  Instead, he found that not everyone was evil and so humanity still had a chance through Noah.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:It is true

RobbyPants wrote:

It is true that if you consider people to be immortal, then it gives you a different perspective on life on Earth. That being said, you would also value that life less, as whatever happens here on Earth is far less important than what happens for all eternity. So, by definition, that outlook will devalue human life.

 

Where did I say that criminals shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions? How did you get that out of:

 

  • This belief structure devalues human life.
  • It leads people to blame the victim.
  • Most Christians don’t think it’s okay for them to kill people.
  • Most Christians think it’s okay for God to kill people

Basically it seems you're suggesting that For Christians to believe as they do and to justify God's actions, it is devaluing human life for those who've done wrong to face judgement

To be judged for what you've done in life, it seems you're saying that's blaming the victim.  

Considering killing people, What does God killing people really mean if there is eternal life?  

RobbyPants wrote:

You and I have very different concepts of “just”. Torturing someone for infinity years based on actions they took in this life based on incomplete information hardly seems just.

They're tortured?  Or are they just not with God?  If God is good by definition, then he is all that is good... which means separation from Good is bad.  that's what I understand hell to be.  It also sounds like we get a million chances.  Basically, not only do we get forgiven through Jesus no matter what we've done if we accept the gift that Jesus died so that we may live, but it sounds like we face judgement in the end times, which means you get to be resurrected whether you're with Christ or not, but those who are not are resurrected into a life of judgement... what that means I"m not sure, but it doesn't sound like it's eternal torturing unless you really choose that path.  

Also, where do you get the idea that Gods judgement is based on incomplete information?  It is said that God knows us better than we know ourselves, how is that incomplete?

RobbyPants wrote:

Also, I don’t see what the point is in saying that if you take all of the bad someone did over their life and applied it to one instance, that it’d make them the worst person ever. So? If you took all the weight I’ve lifted over my life and applied it to one lift, I’d be the strongest person ever. If you take all the good, I’d be the best person ever. What’s the point in taking time out of the equation when looking at many events over time?

 

actually, if we took all the weight you lifted over your lifetime, we would also be doing the same thing with everyone else, so likely you would not be found to be the strongest person ever.  If we took all the good, it would also be done with everyone else and there'd likely be someone still found better.  Point and case, you have a whole lifetime of choices to make.  Once you've lived that life, I understand it that you've had plenty of time to not only make bad choices but to make good choices that can counteract those bad chioces.  Not that you won't be judged for the bad, but you can make a choice to get those bad things overlooked.  

Simply put, did you learn from your mistakes or not...  Did you accept that you made mistakes or not...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

caposkia 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.  

OK, so you're pro-abortion. That's nice. (ok for God=Ok for humans by your reasoning.)

Actually, you're twisting words around.  Let's look at it this way.  Though parents have to have sex and carry a child to birth, they did not create the child, God did.   Or for those non-believers out there, cell division created the child by the means of DNA information... either way, the parents didn't "create" the child, so they in turn have no right to destroy it.  God on the other hand created all of it... beyond that, God also knows more than His creation will ever know... including why things are the way they are.  Some believe certain children are never born or never make it past infancy because that was their purpose.  Despite the fact that they haven't been able to make intentional influences on the world, they still have made changes in those around them.  Those changes might be necessary for whatever is supposed to happen... we don't know and won't until the end.  

We as Christians generally understand that we're put on this Earth for a purpose... or maybe many purposes... and when we have completed whatever it is we needed to do on Earth, we die.  So you say, Gods goal for some people is to make them hurt by pretending to give them a child then take it away?  I can see why someone would look at it that way, but what else could have happened because of such traumatic events?  It's hard to see the good in such things, but just look at inspirational stories from people who have gone through it.  Most of them talk about strength and inspiration from even the unborn child that never made it to life.  What does that strength and inspiration mean for their future?  how has it changed them?  We can only speculate.  

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Hold on.. So there was enough water to wipe out all life on earth, but the flooding was localised to a specific region? How does that work?

I don't have much detail.  I wasn't there.  as far as life on Earth was concerned, how many miles would you say the Bible writer or any observer at the time would be aware of when referencing to "the whole Earth"  Let's be logical here.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

You allow that possibly not all life was wiped out, but all humans definitely were. This would mean that all humans were living within a couple of thousand miles of Mt Ararat at the time... so no humans in the America, Australia, the far East or Africa - is that right? Even the UK is over 2,000 miles away and in a completely different aquatic area - did the flood extend this far?

 Let's ignore humans for the moment - Was all other life wiped out or not? You say maybe not, which means the bible is wrong then, as it says quite clearly several times that all life will be exterminated, i.e. 

 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." 

 If you don't mind, let's expand this to Q4 - how did the animals get to the Ark? Couple of examples: Giant tortoises in the Galapagos (can't swim) and Kangaroos (there's no land bridge from Australia...) So the possible answers given your previous statements appear to be:

a) the floods didn't reach that far, the bible is incorrect.

b) water killed all life - the animals travelled to the ark (please expand how).

 If you have an alternative explanation, please let me know.

 

When reading the Bible, we need to take into consideration the author, time period, the audience and the perspective...  When God speaks of everything on Earth perishing... it very well could have been everything.  Or it could be everything any human knew to exist... which would then localize it to human settlements.  Both can be correct perspectives when looking at this text.  If the text was written for people today, our perspective of the world is pretty literal, so I would assume that it means the whole world and that God found a way to bridge the gap with continents... either that or he somehow allowed all zoo animals across one continent to escape and migrate to the ship... that would be logical in today's standards... however, this was not written for people today, it was written for people thousands of years ago... where the world literally consisted of the kingdoms that ruled them.  Anything outside of that was perceived as space.  If you look at an artists rendition of Earth from that time era, you would not see a round Earth... You would see a flat Earth held up by pillars:  http://witwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hebrew-bible-flat-earth.jpg  that picture I even think gives them too much credit be it that it has a map of Africa and their territories very clearly... which I doubt were as clearly understood at the time, let alone the shape of the continent or its expanse.  

Point and case, an Earth like that would not only be easy to flood, but also wouldn't make it difficult for animals to migrate to a ship.  

Naturally speaking, if the flood actually happened, all land animals would migrate to higher ground.  IF Noah happen to build his ship on a high point, it is logical that animals would eventually find their way to it.  The Bible however doesn't get into that much detail.  I do believe however that God uses the creation standards within which he created to make things happen rather than breaking the laws... it's just easier that way.  

Basically, if we're going to tear apart scripture as in depth as we seem to be getting, we need to take into consideration all aspects of the writing including why it was written the way it was, who wrote it, the time it was written, the audience and what they'd be getting out of it and what it would mean to them and perspectives of all involved.  We also have to look at translational issues and whether what we're reading in English is really what was written or if it had to be paraphrased or selected among many possible translations. This happens in Hebrew and Greek.   Reading scripture today takes a lot more education than it did then becasue today we look at the words completely different than the people intended to read it so long ago.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

caposkia 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.  

OK, so you're pro-abortion. That's nice. (ok for God=Ok for humans by your reasoning.)

Actually, you're twisting words around.  Let's look at it this way.  Though parents have to have sex and carry a child to birth, they did not create the child, God did.   Or for those non-believers out there, cell division created the child by the means of DNA information... either way, the parents didn't "create" the child, so they in turn have no right to destroy it.  God on the other hand created all of it... beyond that, God also knows more than His creation will ever know... including why things are the way they are.  Some believe certain children are never born or never make it past infancy because that was their purpose.  Despite the fact that they haven't been able to make intentional influences on the world, they still have made changes in those around them.  Those changes might be necessary for whatever is supposed to happen... we don't know and won't until the end.  

We as Christians generally understand that we're put on this Earth for a purpose... or maybe many purposes... and when we have completed whatever it is we needed to do on Earth, we die.  So you say, Gods goal for some people is to make them hurt by pretending to give them a child then take it away?  I can see why someone would look at it that way, but what else could have happened because of such traumatic events?  It's hard to see the good in such things, but just look at inspirational stories from people who have gone through it.  Most of them talk about strength and inspiration from even the unborn child that never made it to life.  What does that strength and inspiration mean for their future?  how has it changed them?  We can only speculate.  

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Hold on.. So there was enough water to wipe out all life on earth, but the flooding was localised to a specific region? How does that work?

I don't have much detail.  I wasn't there.  as far as life on Earth was concerned, how many miles would you say the Bible writer or any observer at the time would be aware of when referencing to "the whole Earth"  Let's be logical here.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

You allow that possibly not all life was wiped out, but all humans definitely were. This would mean that all humans were living within a couple of thousand miles of Mt Ararat at the time... so no humans in the America, Australia, the far East or Africa - is that right? Even the UK is over 2,000 miles away and in a completely different aquatic area - did the flood extend this far?

 Let's ignore humans for the moment - Was all other life wiped out or not? You say maybe not, which means the bible is wrong then, as it says quite clearly several times that all life will be exterminated, i.e. 

 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." 

 If you don't mind, let's expand this to Q4 - how did the animals get to the Ark? Couple of examples: Giant tortoises in the Galapagos (can't swim) and Kangaroos (there's no land bridge from Australia...) So the possible answers given your previous statements appear to be:

a) the floods didn't reach that far, the bible is incorrect.

b) water killed all life - the animals travelled to the ark (please expand how).

 If you have an alternative explanation, please let me know.

 

When reading the Bible, we need to take into consideration the author, time period, the audience and the perspective...  When God speaks of everything on Earth perishing... it very well could have been everything.  Or it could be everything any human knew to exist... which would then localize it to human settlements.  Both can be correct perspectives when looking at this text.  If the text was written for people today, our perspective of the world is pretty literal, so I would assume that it means the whole world and that God found a way to bridge the gap with continents... either that or he somehow allowed all zoo animals across one continent to escape and migrate to the ship... that would be logical in today's standards... however, this was not written for people today, it was written for people thousands of years ago... where the world literally consisted of the kingdoms that ruled them.  Anything outside of that was perceived as space.  If you look at an artists rendition of Earth from that time era, you would not see a round Earth... You would see a flat Earth held up by pillars:  http://witwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hebrew-bible-flat-earth.jpg  that picture I even think gives them too much credit be it that it has a map of Africa and their territories very clearly... which I doubt were as clearly understood at the time, let alone the shape of the continent or its expanse.  

Point and case, an Earth like that would not only be easy to flood, but also wouldn't make it difficult for animals to migrate to a ship.  

Naturally speaking, if the flood actually happened, all land animals would migrate to higher ground.  IF Noah happen to build his ship on a high point, it is logical that animals would eventually find their way to it.  The Bible however doesn't get into that much detail.  I do believe however that God uses the creation standards within which he created to make things happen rather than breaking the laws... it's just easier that way.  

Basically, if we're going to tear apart scripture as in depth as we seem to be getting, we need to take into consideration all aspects of the writing including why it was written the way it was, who wrote it, the time it was written, the audience and what they'd be getting out of it and what it would mean to them and perspectives of all involved.  We also have to look at translational issues and whether what we're reading in English is really what was written or if it had to be paraphrased or selected among many possible translations. This happens in Hebrew and Greek.   Reading scripture today takes a lot more education than it did then becasue today we look at the words completely different than the people intended to read it so long ago.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I knew

blacklight915 wrote:

I knew you were being sarcastic, caposkia--I just didn't find it funny. Did you know I was being completely serious and sincere when I said "because God created a stupid system which He refuses to change"?

yes

blacklight915 wrote:

Honestly? Other than mocking me, I didn't realize your statement HAD a point. So...sorry about that... Will you please explain to me exactly what your point was? I'd really appreciate it.

Point was we have the same system in place that you're complaining God has...  No, we don't condemn people for eternity, but for those who believe there is no life after death, how much better is it to be sentenced to life without parol?

blacklight915 wrote:

What really bothers me about you, caposkia, is the you seem to seriously think people deserve to suffer for eternity with no chance of escape. Do you understand just how mind-blowingly f*cked up and evil that is?

actually, i seriously think that none of us deserve to be with God... Though the alternative doesn't leave us with much.  As far as suffer for eternity, that's not my call.  I trust that God will do what is right and just.  I trust Him because I know Him.  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yesYou knew I

caposkia wrote:

yes

You knew I was being completely serious and sincere and still responded with sarcasm?! You really are an ass...

 

caposkia wrote:

Point was we have the same system in place that you're complaining God has...  No, we don't condemn people for eternity, but for those who believe there is no life after death, how much better is it to be sentenced to life without parol?

It's infinitely better. As you already mentioned, prison terms are finite. People in prison are also not completely separated from all that is good.

 

caposkia wrote:

actually, i seriously think that none of us deserve to be with God... Though the alternative doesn't leave us with much.  As far as suffer for eternity, that's not my call.  I trust that God will do what is right and just.  I trust Him because I know Him.

Who would want to be with a being that allowed eternal suffering?!

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

 

Being outside an authority is one thing, but our problem is we are a creation of the authority in question who lives and utilizes everything it created.  In other words, what you'd be asking to do is rebel against the very entity not only that created you, but that made everything you know to be real.  So rebel, but he still has to allow you to use his stuff??? That doesn't seem right.  

Does the act of creating something necessarily lead to a right of ownership over that thing? I don't believe so. Especially if the thing you created is an intelligent life form. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:You knew

blacklight915 wrote:

You knew I was being completely serious and sincere and still responded with sarcasm?! You really are an ass...

It was to make an obvious point more obvious.  I've apologized.  I won't do it again.  If you're stuck on it still, I guess we're done talking.  

In the end, I really don't care what you think of me.  What I do care about is what you think of God.  If you think I'm an ass, then I'll stop talking to you.  I hope that you take it upon yourself to further study the scriptures.  They will have all the answers.  Granted they can be misunderstood at times, it is important to get an experts understanding of what you might have issues with.  I hope you find that someone who you feel is not an ass

blacklight915 wrote:

It's infinitely better. As you already mentioned, prison terms are finite. People in prison are also not completely separated from all that is good.

That's just it though, they still have access to God.  If God is all that is good as defined by scripture, all they're doing is being separated from God... which in turn is being separated from all that is good.  

A life sentence without parol is not finite to someone who dies without an afterlife.  To them that is eternity because all they will know till the end of their existence is jail.  If God is real and there is an afterlife, then you are right to say that prison is finite.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Who would want to be with a being that allowed eternal suffering?!

 

You're stuck on eternal suffering.  God only allows people to choose to be with Him.  If you choose not to, you choose to be separated from Him... that's it.  It is understood that the separation is a terrible thing.    Again, people make that choice for themselves.  God allows it because He chooses not to dictate to you the choices you have to make.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Does the

Beyond Saving wrote:

Does the act of creating something necessarily lead to a right of ownership over that thing? I don't believe so. Especially if the thing you created is an intelligent life form. 

How does it not?  Also, how do you determine the line between rightful ownership or not based on what you create?  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Does the act of creating something necessarily lead to a right of ownership over that thing? I don't believe so. Especially if the thing you created is an intelligent life form. 

How does it not?  Also, how do you determine the line between rightful ownership or not based on what you create?  

Ownership is an arbitrary concept determined by a society's laws and not based upon what you create. Chances are that most of what you own you did not create and whatever job you do, you probably don't own whatever you create; what you create is probably owned by the company you work for. As far as ownership of beings, I don't support any society that advocates the ownership of sentient beings.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

Man! This is for Abrahamic religious people! Don't put all theists on the same bag. I don't comment this because it is absurd. For is like asking me to explain why Kirk is the captain of the starship Enterprise.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It was to

caposkia wrote:

It was to make an obvious point more obvious.  I've apologized.  I won't do it again.  If you're stuck on it still, I guess we're done talking.

Well, it completely failed. But...I do appreciate the apology, and I'll move on now, sorry

 

caposkia wrote:

What I do care about is what you think of God.

Provided your God is the way you describe Him, I think He is the most evil being in existence. I think He is a sadistic, genocidal tyrant, and that worshiping Him is one of the most repulsive things imaginable.

 

caposkia wrote:

A life sentence without parol is not finite to someone who dies without an afterlife. To them that is eternity because all they will know till the end of their existence is jail.

Since their existence is finite, their jail time must be finite as well.

 

caposkia wrote:

God allows it because He chooses not to dictate to you the choices you have to make.

And, as I think I've stated before, God SHOULD dictate the choices people make if it's the only way to ensure no one goes to Hell.

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

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!!!"

The point here is we don't know what God knew about those people and who existed and what age.  

1 Samuel 15:3 in both the KJV and the NIV have Yahweh using the word "infant". Nice try though.

caposkia wrote:

What we do know is that the Bible makes it clear that people became so "evil" that God regretted ever making them in the first place...

His plan was to erase humanity from the face of the Earth... proabably to never make them again.  The solution wasn't really a solution to a problem as you're looking at it... God was basically going to scrap the human blueprint because it wasn't working.  

They were in essence destroying everything else He had worked so hard to create.  Instead, he found that not everyone was evil and so humanity still had a chance through Noah.  

So god created humanity that had the capacity to do evil, rather than create humanity that lacks that capacity altogether. By the way, I know we're still talking about mass slaughter, but I was talking about one mass slaughter event, whereas you brought in another one. 

My question was not really worded as a question, but I would like if you could answer this:

Why were the Amalekite infants a lost cause (and therefore, ordered slaughtered by the omni-benevolent god)?

 

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.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:however, this was

 

Quote:

however, this was not written for people today, it was written for people thousands of years ago
But hold on, are you not of the opinion that the bible is as valid today as it ever was? If God's faithful followers wrote the bible, then either they had help from god, or they wrote it as they understood the world at the time. If the former, then you can't use the 'they wouldn't have known about far away animals' cop out, because God is supposedly omniscient - he'd have communicated this so that the book was written correctly. If the latter, why the hell are we still considering the opinions of stone age writers who are making stuff up because they don't understand how the world actually works? This scenario would definitely mean this book is written by man and therefore fallible. Here's the real question though. do you believe the bible is 100% accurate? You've alluded to this in the past. If you do, then all of your 'maybe this and maybe that' possibilities are rendered immaterial because you believe what is written in the bible is the truth, and the truth is not a gradient scale. If the bible is not 100% truth, how do you know which bits are true, and which bits are false? If you believe that the bible is 100% truth, then you must believe the account of the flood as written - are you saying you don't?

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

It is true that if you consider people to be immortal, then it gives you a different perspective on life on Earth. That being said, you would also value that life less, as whatever happens here on Earth is far less important than what happens for all eternity. So, by definition, that outlook will devalue human life.


Where did I say that criminals shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions? How did you get that out of:

-This belief structure devalues human life.
-It leads people to blame the victim.
-Most Christians don’t think it’s okay for them to kill people.
-Most Christians think it’s okay for God to kill people


Basically it seems you're suggesting that For Christians to believe as they do and to justify God's actions, it is devaluing human life for those who've done wrong to face judgement

To be judged for what you've done in life, it seems you're saying that's blaming the victim.

Considering killing people, What does God killing people really mean if there is eternal life?

You're pulling what I wrote out of context. That paragraph was me responding to this:

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?

My point is, that line of thinking tends to lead to blaming the victim (when they're the actual victim, not criminals). This pertains to things like people blaming rape victims for "having it coming to them". Basically, these kids "had it coming to them" because their parents got in trouble, so naturally, they must be just as bad, right?

I said nothing about not punishing criminals.


---


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:
You and I have very different concepts of “just”. Torturing someone for infinity years based on actions they took in this life based on incomplete information hardly seems just.


They're tortured? Or are they just not with God? If God is good by definition, then he is all that is good... which means separation from Good is bad. that's what I understand hell to be. It also sounds like we get a million chances. Basically, not only do we get forgiven through Jesus no matter what we've done if we accept the gift that Jesus died so that we may live, but it sounds like we face judgement in the end times, which means you get to be resurrected whether you're with Christ or not, but those who are not are resurrected into a life of judgement... what that means I"m not sure, but it doesn't sound like it's eternal torturing unless you really choose that path.

Also, where do you get the idea that Gods judgement is based on incomplete information? It is said that God knows us better than we know ourselves, how is that incomplete?

Unquenchable fires, wailing, and gnashing of teeth? Yeah, tourtured.


---


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:


Also, I don’t see what the point is in saying that if you take all of the bad someone did over their life and applied it to one instance, that it’d make them the worst person ever. So? If you took all the weight I’ve lifted over my life and applied it to one lift, I’d be the strongest person ever. If you take all the good, I’d be the best person ever. What’s the point in taking time out of the equation when looking at many events over time?





actually, if we took all the weight you lifted over your lifetime, we would also be doing the same thing with everyone else, so likely you would not be found to be the strongest person ever. If we took all the good, it would also be done with everyone else and there'd likely be someone still found better. Point and case, you have a whole lifetime of choices to make. Once you've lived that life, I understand it that you've had plenty of time to not only make bad choices but to make good choices that can counteract those bad chioces. Not that you won't be judged for the bad, but you can make a choice to get those bad things overlooked.

Simply put, did you learn from your mistakes or not... Did you accept that you made mistakes or not...

That's not what you said the first time. That response was to you saying:

caposkia wrote:

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.

Your post was considering that I should take all of my bad at one time, sum it up, and realize that that much bad would be the worst thing in history if viewed "all at once". That's what you said. I said that it didn't make sense to take a lifetime of anything (bad, good, lifting, etc) and view it irrespective of time compared to normal single events. Then, you respond with something else entirely. You weren't comparing all of my weight over my life to all of someone else's weight over their life. You were comparing all of my bad over my life to any one single bad event in history.

All of this goal post shifting is making it very difficult to talk to you.

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:


GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:


caposkia 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.



OK, so you're pro-abortion. That's nice. (ok for God=Ok for humans by your reasoning.)



Actually, you're twisting words around. Let's look at it this way. Though parents have to have sex and carry a child to birth, they did not create the child, God did. Or for those non-believers out there, cell division created the child by the means of DNA information... either way, the parents didn't "create" the child, so they in turn have no right to destroy it. God on the other hand created all of it... beyond that, God also knows more than His creation will ever know... including why things are the way they are. Some believe certain children are never born or never make it past infancy because that was their purpose. Despite the fact that they haven't been able to make intentional influences on the world, they still have made changes in those around them. Those changes might be necessary for whatever is supposed to happen... we don't know and won't until the end.

We as Christians generally understand that we're put on this Earth for a purpose... or maybe many purposes... and when we have completed whatever it is we needed to do on Earth, we die. So you say, Gods goal for some people is to make them hurt by pretending to give them a child then take it away? I can see why someone would look at it that way, but what else could have happened because of such traumatic events? It's hard to see the good in such things, but just look at inspirational stories from people who have gone through it. Most of them talk about strength and inspiration from even the unborn child that never made it to life. What does that strength and inspiration mean for their future? how has it changed them? We can only speculate.
Are you seriously arguing that the more involved someone is in creating a life, the more authority they have to end it? Whether or not the parents control cell division, they certainly can know that their actions of procreation are likely to cause it. Given those two things, that would mean that a person that chose to procreate would have more authority over their child's life than a person who accidentally became pregnant, who would have more authority than a person who was raped and became pregnant against their will.

Now, I know you don't actually use the whole cell division argument yourself, but it seems like a very weird one to make (with some creepy consequences!) to non-believers.
 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:What I

blacklight915 wrote:

What I do care about is what you think of God.

Provided your God is the way you describe Him, I think He is the most evil being in existence. I think He is a sadistic, genocidal tyrant, and that worshiping Him is one of the most repulsive things imaginable.

Interesting... be it that the words you used to describe my God are defined as the very things that oppose God... I mean that literally.  

I think here you're looking at death as an end and not a way for God to take back what's his.  In Exodus, God claims that all newborns are his.  To kill them or have them die, they would be brought to his presence... not dead as we understand it.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Since their existence is finite, their jail time must be finite as well.

Right, as far as any observer is concerned it is, they're in jail until they die.. from their own perspective, it is eternal unless you're suggesting they can be aware that they're no longer in jail once they die.  I agree that they'd be aware and that jail is finite.

blacklight915 wrote:

And, as I think I've stated before, God SHOULD dictate the choices people make if it's the only way to ensure no one goes to Hell.

 

I see your reasoning, but what kind of existence for us do you think that would be?  I'd rather be able to make my own choice.  God wants relationships, not mindless robots.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:1 Samuel

Jabberwocky wrote:

1 Samuel 15:3 in both the KJV and the NIV have Yahweh using the word "infant". Nice try though.

I thought we were talking about Exodus and Noah.. Infant was not used there.  Either way, my point that God claims they're his and when they die they are brought to His care still stands.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So god created humanity that had the capacity to do evil, rather than create humanity that lacks that capacity altogether. By the way, I know we're still talking about mass slaughter, but I was talking about one mass slaughter event, whereas you brought in another one. 

My question was not really worded as a question, but I would like if you could answer this:

Why were the Amalekite infants a lost cause (and therefore, ordered slaughtered by the omni-benevolent god)?

 

Parents are responsible for their children.. Despite popular belief, your actions affect your children.  

Beyond that, I don't know exactly what God's intention was when allowing that... mainly because I"m not omnipotent or omniscient.   Considering what He's promised and proved, I don't doubt that His reasoning was sound.  For all we know, all those children could have been worse then their parents when they grew up.  You could argue against that, but in the end, all we can do is guess.  

I do believe however in the 2nd resurrection in the end, when all are risen to a life of judgement, those children will be safe.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

But hold on, are you not of the opinion that the bible is as valid today as it ever was? 
Yes, God did not ask them to write generational versions of scripture that would apply to the language and lifestyles throughout the ages, therefore it was still written for those 1000's of years ago.   
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
If the former, then you can't use the 'they wouldn't have known about far away animals' cop out, because God is supposedly omniscient - he'd have communicated this so that the book was written correctly.
Cop out huh??? ok why would he find it necessary to communicate that when He was just flooding what they knew to be "the world"?
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
 If the latter, why the hell are we still considering the opinions of stone age writers who are making stuff up because they don't understand how the world actually works? This scenario would definitely mean this book is written by man and therefore fallible.
It's inspired by God, not made up.  
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
 Here's the real question though. do you believe the bible is 100% accurate? You've alluded to this in the past. If you do, then all of your 'maybe this and maybe that' possibilities are rendered immaterial because you believe what is written in the bible is the truth, and the truth is not a gradient scale. If the bible is not 100% truth, how do you know which bits are true, and which bits are false? If you believe that the bible is 100% truth, then you must believe the account of the flood as written - are you saying you don't?

 

I've explained this many times.  I believe the Bible is accurate.  I do believe that it is inspired by God and not written by Him.. With that said, minor things like dates and names might not be accurate... also everything is written in a humanistic perspective of that time, so quantity and space is skewed.  

does this in any way invalidate scripture?  No  many accepted facts of history are from scripts with the same types of errors.  Cross referencing can fix those issues easily which is why it has never invalidated factual history. 

How do I know which bits are true and which bits are false?  I would say more like inaccurate and not false be it that it was reported as it was understood by the writer.  That's an easy answer.  You just have to do your history homework.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:You're

RobbyPants wrote:

You're pulling what I wrote out of context. That paragraph was me responding to this:

Which is why I responded with; "it seems you're saying... It seems you're suggesting" which would imply I'm offering you an opportunity to clarify rather than pulling what you write out of context as you're suggesting.  

RobbyPants wrote:


My point is, that line of thinking tends to lead to blaming the victim (when they're the actual victim, not criminals). This pertains to things like people blaming rape victims for "having it coming to them". Basically, these kids "had it coming to them" because their parents got in trouble, so naturally, they must be just as bad, right?

No, Parents bring the problems to their children, that is seen throughout history.  All we know is children are taken away along with their parents.  You're only assuming they're destroyed.  Killed is not destroyed.  That is a non-believer understanding.  If God is real, you also understand that an afterlife must be as well.  

RobbyPants wrote:


I said nothing about not punishing criminals.

Right, I did

RobbyPants wrote:


Unquenchable fires, wailing, and gnashing of teeth? Yeah, tourtured.

The Wailing and gnashing of teeth is referring to the people that are there doing it... Considering the unquenchable fires.  What are those fires exactly?  Are they literal?  If so, what is fueling them?  

RobbyPants wrote:


caposkia wrote:

actually, if we took all the weight you lifted over your lifetime, we would also be doing the same thing with everyone else, so likely you would not be found to be the strongest person ever. If we took all the good, it would also be done with everyone else and there'd likely be someone still found better. Point and case, you have a whole lifetime of choices to make. Once you've lived that life, I understand it that you've had plenty of time to not only make bad choices but to make good choices that can counteract those bad chioces. Not that you won't be judged for the bad, but you can make a choice to get those bad things overlooked.

Simply put, did you learn from your mistakes or not... Did you accept that you made mistakes or not...

That's not what you said the first time. That response was to you saying:

caposkia wrote:

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.

Your post was considering that I should take all of my bad at one time, sum it up, and realize that that much bad would be the worst thing in history if viewed "all at once". That's what you said. I said that it didn't make sense to take a lifetime of anything (bad, good, lifting, etc) and view it irrespective of time compared to normal single events. Then, you respond with something else entirely. You weren't comparing all of my weight over my life to all of someone else's weight over their life. You were comparing all of my bad over my life to any one single bad event in history.


All of this goal post shifting is making it very difficult to talk to you.

 

I kept it so we can all reflect on your goal post claim.  You also responded by saying that if we took into consideration all the weight you lifted in your lifetime, you'd be seen as the strongest person alive.. There the comparison to other people came in by me saying that everyone is going to be judged like that.  You would not be considered the strongest because others will be judged likewise.  What i originally said and said after does not contradict or change any goal posts.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

1 Samuel 15:3 in both the KJV and the NIV have Yahweh using the word "infant". Nice try though.

I thought we were talking about Exodus and Noah.. Infant was not used there.  Either way, my point that God claims they're his and when they die they are brought to His care still stands.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So god created humanity that had the capacity to do evil, rather than create humanity that lacks that capacity altogether. By the way, I know we're still talking about mass slaughter, but I was talking about one mass slaughter event, whereas you brought in another one. 

My question was not really worded as a question, but I would like if you could answer this:

Why were the Amalekite infants a lost cause (and therefore, ordered slaughtered by the omni-benevolent god)?

 

Parents are responsible for their children.. Despite popular belief, your actions affect your children.  

Sorry I keep responding to the wrong stuff. Too many tabs open, and too many genocide stories in the bible.

Anyhow, up there you say that god claims that these young children are his. Then you say that parents are responsible for their children. I agree with that. However, if the children seem to be a lost cause, it is both illegal and immoral for the parent to slaughter that child. Do you agree? Because if you don't, that puts you in a situation where you could possibly justify such a heinous act.

 

If you do, it puts you into a very awkward situation as well. It is claimed of your god that he is omnipotent, and omniscient. If you're a young Earth creationist, and believe that he created Adam and Eve, then for their descendants to be evil, he would have known upon creating them that the possibility of evil sperm/egg combos was present. For us, hindsight is 20/20, whereas for an omniscient god, by definition, his foresight is 20/20! There is no possible way he could have done this without knowing how it was going to turn out in advance. Therefore, god went ahead with his creation regardless, even though he knew it would have to end in genocide by flood. 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond that, I don't know exactly what God's intention was when allowing that... mainly because I"m not omnipotent or omniscient.   Considering what He's promised and proved, I don't doubt that His reasoning was sound.  For all we know, all those children could have been worse then their parents when they grew up.  You could argue against that, but in the end, all we can do is guess.  

This is the sort of talk that scares me. 

"I don't know, because I'm not god, however, I know that my god would never commit mass genocide, unless it was absolutely necessary for the greater good. Also, he's omnipotent, but there must have been no better solution than death by drowning for the entire world!"

Of course, today when I ask god to show himself I'm told "god doesn't work that way". But back then, he was chatting with people all the time. Why not talk to EVERYONE and get them to fly right? Nah....drowning.

Also, I'm intrigued by another statement in there. What is it that god has promised and proved? 

caposkia wrote:

I do believe however in the 2nd resurrection in the end, when all are risen to a life of judgement, those children will be safe.  

So you believe in two more of them than I do! 

 

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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Are you

RobbyPants wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that the more involved someone is in creating a life, the more authority they have to end it? Whether or not the parents control cell division, they certainly can know that their actions of procreation are likely to cause it. Given those two things, that would mean that a person that chose to procreate would have more authority over their child's life than a person who accidentally became pregnant, who would have more authority than a person who was raped and became pregnant against their will.

Now, I know you don't actually use the whole cell division argument yourself, but it seems like a very weird one to make (with some creepy consequences!) to non-believers.
 

No one can be "accidentally pregnant".. They still made a choice that involved the possibility... everyone doing that should be aware that each time has that possibility no matter what precautions you take.... beyond that, a rape victim  had no choice, but the other person made the choice for them.  Unfortunately, Our laws don't make them responsible completely, only financially.  I don't mean by raising the child either.  If the person got pregnant, there is a plan, but no one understands it until you allow that child to come to be. 


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

caposkia wrote:

Interesting... be it that the words you used to describe my God are defined as the very things that oppose God... I mean that literally.

Then those words must have a different meaning to you than they do to me.

 

caposkia wrote:

I think here you're looking at death as an end and not a way for God to take back what's his.  In Exodus, God claims that all newborns are his.  To kill them or have them die, they would be brought to his presence... not dead as we understand it.

Your God can only legitimately own me if I choose to allow Him to. Also, according to most Christians, I won't be going into God's presence when I die; I'll be going to Hell. There, I'll be joining countless other decent human beings to suffer in horrible agony for all of eternity.

 

caposkia wrote:

Right, as far as any observer is concerned it is, they're in jail until they die.. from their own perspective, it is eternal unless you're suggesting they can be aware that they're no longer in jail once they die.  I agree that they'd be aware and that jail is finite.

It is finite even if they cease to exist and to be aware when they die. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God wants relationships, not mindless robots.

There are many ways your God could solve this dilemma while remaining quite moral. However, allowing eternal suffering so He can have genuine relationships, is NOT one of those ways.

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No, Parents

caposkia wrote:

No, Parents bring the problems to their children, that is seen throughout history.  All we know is children are taken away along with their parents.  You're only assuming they're destroyed.  Killed is not destroyed.  That is a non-believer understanding.  If God is real, you also understand that an afterlife must be as well.  

Sure, but you posit that God is an intelligent entity and not an unintelligent actor. If a parent leads their kid into a fire and the fire kills them, it's the parent's fault. If they toss them off the boat into water and they drown, it's the parent's fault. If they sin in front of their kids and Almighty God figures the kids will turn out bad as well and kills all of them, it's God's fault. The idea that this is the parent's fault is a horrible false equivalence.

And yes, killed does not mean destroyed, but that's a whole other bag of worms. Also, they died by asphyxiation, which is one of the worst ways to die. So, good afterlife or not, God has a weird (creepy) way of showing mercy to children.

 

caposkia wrote:

I kept it so we can all reflect on your goal post claim.  You also responded by saying that if we took into consideration all the weight you lifted in your lifetime, you'd be seen as the strongest person alive.. There the comparison to other people came in by me saying that everyone is going to be judged like that.  You would not be considered the strongest because others will be judged likewise.  What i originally said and said after does not contradict or change any goal posts.

No, first, you compare all of my evil over my life the any single act by anyone else. Then, you compare all of my good over my life to all of the good over anyone else's life. These are not equal and you're shifting the goal posts.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No one can be

caposkia wrote:

No one can be "accidentally pregnant".. They still made a choice that involved the possibility... everyone doing that should be aware that each time has that possibility no matter what precautions you take.... beyond that, a rape victim  had no choice, but the other person made the choice for them.

Well, even if you factor out unplanned preganacies, there still is rape. So, as you said, only the rapist had a choice in making that kid, which is worse still, because according to your whole "more choice = more authority" argument from earlier, the rapist has more say over what happens to that kid.

 

Weird.

 

caposkia wrote:
Unfortunately, Our laws don't make them responsible completely, only financially.  I don't mean by raising the child either.  If the person got pregnant, there is a plan, but no one understands it until you allow that child to come to be. 

See, it's this sort of creepy Todd Aiken-like apologetics that that makes it hard to take this seriously. There's a reason most people distanced themselves from him as soon as he said that.

 

Edit: Sorry, that wasn't Todd Aiken; it was Richard Mourdock.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Then

blacklight915 wrote:

Then those words must have a different meaning to you than they do to me.

or is it that evil is generally misunderstood.  We can't define evil by saying it's anything we don't like.

blacklight915 wrote:

Your God can only legitimately own me if I choose to allow Him to. Also, according to most Christians, I won't be going into God's presence when I die; I'll be going to Hell. There, I'll be joining countless other decent human beings to suffer in horrible agony for all of eternity.

You are right to say you are not Gods unless you allow him too... this is where the choice comes in.   for you to say that you won't be going to Gods presence when you die shows that you are aware of the choice. (I know, according to most Christians, not you)  At this point, if that is true, you will choose that fate... You still have a chance for that not to happen.  I don't care what you've done in life up until now.  

Also, consider if we're wrong, you lose nothing, if you're wrong you lose everything.  

Obviously you need to make peace with God first.  i can see that.

blacklight915 wrote:

It is finite even if they cease to exist and to be aware when they die. 

if there's no life after death, we might see it as finite because we will survive beyond that point to observe its end, however if you're the one dying there, how is it finite to you if you have no existence after death?  To cease to exist makes this life eternal only because you are aware of nothing after including anything in this life ending for you... the end won't be the end, rather it's just nothing.  

blacklight915 wrote:

There are many ways your God could solve this dilemma while remaining quite moral. However, allowing eternal suffering so He can have genuine relationships, is NOT one of those ways.

How do you suggest that eternal suffering is Gods way to genuine relationships?  I think I missed that part in the Bible.  

Again, he allows people to make a choice.. as far as what this eternal suffering is, we can only guess.  It's just the absense of God from what I understand.  The suffering comes from that separation, not from any intentional torture from what I can tell unless you can show me how it's intentional.  

considering your opinion of God, I'm surprised that you want Him to force you to be with Him.  Wouldn't that be suffering for you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Sure, but

RobbyPants wrote:

Sure, but you posit that God is an intelligent entity and not an unintelligent actor. If a parent leads their kid into a fire and the fire kills them, it's the parent's fault. If they toss them off the boat into water and they drown, it's the parent's fault. If they sin in front of their kids and Almighty God figures the kids will turn out bad as well and kills all of them, it's God's fault. The idea that this is the parent's fault is a horrible false equivalence.

And yes, killed does not mean destroyed, but that's a whole other bag of worms. Also, they died by asphyxiation, which is one of the worst ways to die. So, good afterlife or not, God has a weird (creepy) way of showing mercy to children.

point is those parents brought that onto their own children.  God made it clear what was going to happen... those parents chose to ignore the warnings.   To really pull the story apart, any family whos parent who came to the conclusion that; "hey, we're going to die unless we stop... [insert sin here]" and repented would have been on that boat.  They brought it onto their children.  God just followed through with a promise.  

RobbyPants wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

I kept it so we can all reflect on your goal post claim.  You also responded by saying that if we took into consideration all the weight you lifted in your lifetime, you'd be seen as the strongest person alive.. There the comparison to other people came in by me saying that everyone is going to be judged like that.  You would not be considered the strongest because others will be judged likewise.  What i originally said and said after does not contradict or change any goal posts.

No, first, you compare all of my evil over my life the any single act by anyone else. Then, you compare all of my good over my life to all of the good over anyone else's life. These are not equal and you're shifting the goal posts.

my point was they were not equal.. you claimed to do so would make you the strongest person, I cried false... you seem to agree.  no goal changes here.  I think we can move on from it. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Well, even

RobbyPants wrote:

Well, even if you factor out unplanned preganacies, there still is rape. So, as you said, only the rapist had a choice in making that kid, which is worse still, because according to your whole "more choice = more authority" argument from earlier, the rapist has more say over what happens to that kid.

 

Weird.

sure, weird too yes, but here's the thing.  This rapist is also going to be held accountable for every choice they make with and for that child.  The bible makes severe warnings about leading children astray.  

Point and case, the rapist isn't just going to get back door service in jail...   consider that compilation of all actions in life discussion we had that seem to go to left field.

RobbyPants wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
Unfortunately, Our laws don't make them responsible completely, only financially.  I don't mean by raising the child either.  If the person got pregnant, there is a plan, but no one understands it until you allow that child to come to be. 

See, it's this sort of creepy Todd Aiken-like apologetics that that makes it hard to take this seriously. There's a reason most people distanced themselves from him as soon as he said that.

 

Edit: Sorry, that wasn't Todd Aiken; it was Richard Mourdock.

why, because he made a point that we feel we have no power over?  

other than finances and jail time, consider what responsibility someone like that really has for their actions... virtually none.  Explain how I'm wrong in stating that.  I honestly dont' understand.


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

caposkia wrote:

Also, consider if we're wrong, you lose nothing, if you're wrong you lose everything.

A person who genuinely cares about the pursuit of truth would never use Pascal's Wager. Your employment of it indicates you are not really open to being persuaded--no matter how sound the argument or plentiful the evidence.

Others posting in this thread: what is your opinion on caposkia's use of a form of Pascal's Wager?

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Others

blacklight915 wrote:

Others posting in this thread: what is your opinion on caposkia's use of a form of Pascal's Wager?

 

I am by definition an agnostic atheist, because I don't claim to know that no god exists. However, when it comes to the Christian god specifically, I am a gnostic aYahwehist/aChristist (for lack of a real word). I simply can't think of any conceivable way that Christianity can be true, so this doesn't worry me whatsoever. 

If it comes to other gods, the Christians are screwed anyway and perhaps more-so than me. Worshipping false gods is seen as worse than worshipping no gods in most scriptures.

A question about hell for the Christians: Can hell exist without god's permission? If you say yes, then you are saying that god is not omnipotent. If you say no, then you're saying that it is with god's blessing that a place of ETERNAL TORTURE exists. While typing this I thought maybe the word blessing is a little too far, but after reading it again I've decided it's actually perfect. Certainly an omnipotent being wouldn't be indecisive. I could not see that being go "ehh...uhhh...wellllllluhhhhhhhh yeah. Sure! Let's do the eternal torture thing. I wasn't sure, but yeah. Gabriel! Could you deliver the title deed to Lucifer?" "I'm busy writing my book; The Qu'ran! Can you get Raphael to do it?" "*sigh* Ok fine!" I'm just poking fun now, but it's to illustrate the point that for hell to exist, god has to WANT it to exist. 

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.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
God and Anton Chigurh

caposkia wrote:

point is those parents brought that onto their own children.  God made it clear what was going to happen... those parents chose to ignore the warnings.   To really pull the story apart, any family whos parent who came to the conclusion that; "hey, we're going to die unless we stop... [insert sin here]" and repented would have been on that boat.  They brought it onto their children.  God just followed through with a promise.  

Yes, and those children themselves did nothing to bring this on themselves. They didn't make any choice in the matter. The parents did bad and the kids get punished.

Have you ever seen the movie No Country for Old Men? [spoiler alert!] The bad guy (Chigurh) is after the good guy (Moss) to get a satchel full of money. Moss stays one step ahead of him. Finally, Chigurh makes a threat that if he doesn't give him the money, he'll kill his wife. Now, before the two of them meet, Moss gets killed by someone else and Chigurh  finds the hidden money. That should be good and settled, right? No. Chigurh  has it in his head that he still has to kill his wife because Moss failed to deliver the money on his own. Chigurh drives to her house, tells her why he's there, and kills her. She even tells him at before hand that it makes no sense.  The purpose of the threat was to get the money, and he has the money, but  Chigurh has lost sight of that. In his world, he made a promise, and that promise has to be fulfilled, even if the original purpose is null and void.

 

You are literally positing a God as vindictive and arbitrary as Anton Chigurh. No hyperbole.

There is a reason a lot of people consider Chigurh to be one of the better movie villains, and you are using that behavior as an excuse for killing kids in the flood. That's why I find this creepy.


 


 

 

caposkia wrote:
Unfortunately, Our laws don't make them responsible completely, only financially.  I don't mean by raising the child either.  If the person got pregnant, there is a plan, but no one understands it until you allow that child to come to be.

(emphasis mine)

caposkia wrote:
other than finances and jail time, consider what responsibility someone like that really has for their actions... virtually none.  Explain how I'm wrong in stating that.  I honestly dont' understand.

No, my complaint is assuming there's a plan. It's incredibly insulting to the woman to tell her that there's a wonderful purpose behind her assault.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Also, consider if we're wrong, you lose nothing, if you're wrong you lose everything.

A person who genuinely cares about the pursuit of truth would never use Pascal's Wager. Your employment of it indicates you are not really open to being persuaded--no matter how sound the argument or plentiful the evidence.

Others posting in this thread: what is your opinion on caposkia's use of a form of Pascal's Wager?

 

Consider the outcomes.  How does this suggest I'm not open to sound argument or evidence?  Have I shown that i'm not open to that?   Pascal's Wager aside, how is my statement not true in this light?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Others posting in this thread: what is your opinion on caposkia's use of a form of Pascal's Wager?

 

I am by definition an agnostic atheist, because I don't claim to know that no god exists. However, when it comes to the Christian god specifically, I am a gnostic aYahwehist/aChristist (for lack of a real word). I simply can't think of any conceivable way that Christianity can be true, so this doesn't worry me whatsoever. 

If it comes to other gods, the Christians are screwed anyway and perhaps more-so than me. Worshipping false gods is seen as worse than worshipping no gods in most scriptures.

A question about hell for the Christians: Can hell exist without god's permission? If you say yes, then you are saying that god is not omnipotent. If you say no, then you're saying that it is with god's blessing that a place of ETERNAL TORTURE exists. While typing this I thought maybe the word blessing is a little too far, but after reading it again I've decided it's actually perfect. Certainly an omnipotent being wouldn't be indecisive. I could not see that being go "ehh...uhhh...wellllllluhhhhhhhh yeah. Sure! Let's do the eternal torture thing. I wasn't sure, but yeah. Gabriel! Could you deliver the title deed to Lucifer?" "I'm busy writing my book; The Qu'ran! Can you get Raphael to do it?" "*sigh* Ok fine!" I'm just poking fun now, but it's to illustrate the point that for hell to exist, god has to WANT it to exist. 

Who said hell was a place?  

Let's assume it is.  to not have a place called Hell for those who choose to break the law is to suggest we shouldn't have jail for those who break the law here.  Also, is eternity really forever?  Revelation talks about resurrections that include those who are allegedly in hell... which means they do get out... then after that everything including hell is destroyed in the lake of fire... so even if there wasn't that resurrection in revelation, it looks like they'd eventually be destroyed completely... which means there would be an end to the torture either way.  

Also, are you a "hellfire and brimestone" believer... er... non-believer? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Yes, and

RobbyPants wrote:

Yes, and those children themselves did nothing to bring this on themselves. They didn't make any choice in the matter. The parents did bad and the kids get punished.

Have you ever seen the movie No Country for Old Men? [spoiler alert!] The bad guy (Chigurh) is after the good guy (Moss) to get a satchel full of money. Moss stays one step ahead of him. Finally, Chigurh makes a threat that if he doesn't give him the money, he'll kill his wife. Now, before the two of them meet, Moss gets killed by someone else and Chigurh  finds the hidden money. That should be good and settled, right? No. Chigurh  has it in his head that he still has to kill his wife because Moss failed to deliver the money on his own. Chigurh drives to her house, tells her why he's there, and kills her. She even tells him at before hand that it makes no sense.  The purpose of the threat was to get the money, and he has the money, but  Chigurh has lost sight of that. In his world, he made a promise, and that promise has to be fulfilled, even if the original purpose is null and void.

 

You are literally positing a God as vindictive and arbitrary as Anton Chigurh. No hyperbole.

There is a reason a lot of people consider Chigurh to be one of the better movie villains, and you are using that behavior as an excuse for killing kids in the flood. That's why I find this creepy.

but to break a promise would be to become a liar.  Point and case... We can imply by context in the story that God had been in contact with those people and had not been getting anywhere for a while.  He pretty much gave up trying and said. Ok, here's what i'm going to do.  Again, regardless... God wanted to start fresh.  I see your parallel, but God didn't get what he wanted... which was for everyone to repent and turn to Him for guidance in doing so.  In other words, he never got the money.  

 

 

RobbyPants wrote:

No, my complaint is assuming there's a plan. It's incredibly insulting to the woman to tell her that there's a wonderful purpose behind her assault.

 

That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.  


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Cap

 

 

This is a good thread in my opinion, given it is focused on one of the pivot points of christianity, judaism and islam - the assertion of the existence of genetic evil.

The arguments you make assume that there is a god, there is a god humans can know, a god that can communicate with humans. 

Your posts seem to suggest you believe this god has a different standard of love, empathy, mercy and forgiveness than humans have. 

But how is it possible for us to understand such things from our perspective? We can only comprehend these qualities in an anthropomorphic way. 

And how is it possible we be exhorted to love our brother, to turn our cheeks, when god's own behaviour reflects something much darker? The monotheistic god concept is not forgiving - jesus is a blood sacrifice remember. 

Now, I believe words like good and evil are words that label human judgments, not material facts. And on the basis of your personal judgments Cap, and the judgments of the author of Torah, we are asked to accept the rulings of a cult's narrative as facts.

Human judgment depends on context and mental bias and the personal analogies of our own experiences. And it's intuitive. Judgment can't be weighed, measured or tested. 

How can a judgment phrase like 'humans are evil' actually be known to be true by humans in a way that does not constitute mere face value acceptance of a religion's bald assertion?

 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
God did it?

 

caposkia wrote:

Though parents have to have sex and carry a child to birth, they did not create the child, God did....God on the other hand created all of it... beyond that, God also knows more than His creation will ever know... 

This statement assumes its first premise. What is a god? How does it interact with the material world to create life? How can you know how much 'god' knows about his 'creation'? If you have no objective proofs of these truth statements then they are hypotheses with no data. You say "God did it". Show us that this is true using a proof that does not involve only a convolution of language. 

What we can say in the case of humans is that sperm and egg contribute half the DNA to a germ cell and from that single cell a human grows. Life makes itself. No, I don't understand how at the genetic level, but that's how it seems to be. We can say that life creates ecosystems. We can even say that human bodies are symbiotic ecosystems and we might argue that genomes too, are symbiotic ecosystems. 

We can't say certainly what life is, but what we can say is that a mother grows her baby with chocolate, oatmeal and fruit salad. A child is made of the stuff of our planet. There's nothing supernatural in the recipe of life. 

caposkia wrote:

Most of them talk about strength and inspiration from even the unborn child that never made it to life. 

 

I've lost 3 children in utero and that experience argues the universe does not care - not in the way we want it to. It has no agency, no plan, no intent. Older women and men accrue genetic mutations and we lose our babies because their broken genomes are not viable in an environment that's fiercely competitive from the instant of conception. The idea young women keep their babies and older ones lose their's as the result of god's plan has no basis in the data. 

All life seems to be part of an entropic system powered by a solar host. This does not mean that in the absence of eager acceptance of supernatural assertion, losing children has no meaning for non-believing humans. Like everything else, loss of little ones has what meaning we give it. It is the shape of the pain I give it.  

 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Liar

 

caposkia wrote:

but to break a promise would be to become a liar.  

 

A promise is a mutual agreement between 2 human beings. We know nothing about a god or whether or not it might mirror complex human social behaviours despite apparently living alone on a 'golden throne'. 

To break a human promise god would not have had to make an intentionally misleading statement. God could simply have made a new agreement. 

But if we are going to assume god has human qualities and gets miffed about being ignored then clearly god decided that rather than re-frame a position that was not working he decided to become a mass murderer instead. 

Personally, I believe the flood story is ludicrous. Consider the sole proof - the narrative of Torah - a veritable assertion tommy-gun. 

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. That judgement is untrue of any person who has ever lived.

Please prove this bald assertion of Torah to be true using material proofs. And please explain how it was the jewish priest who wrote this hateful verse knew the 'mind of god'.   

 

 

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


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Who said hell

caposkia wrote:

Who said hell was a place?  

The New Testament.

I think a furnace of fire is a "place" by definition. (Matthew 13:41-42).

Everlasting fire is not a place per se, rather it's a condition of a place, but it nonetheless also has to occur in...you guessed it, a place! (Matthew 18:8-9).

Outer darkness, as described in Matthew 22:13, would also most likely be a place. If not, it would fall into the same category as above; a condition of a place. 

Luke 16:22-24 definitely describes a place where "the rich man" went. 

 

So unless you are a Christian who does not believe what the bible says (which would be quite contradictory, as the Christian claim IS the bible), then it's your own book which says that hell is a place. I think you were just trying to dodge the question by redefining things, or putting them into the realm of the unknown, or abstract. Common apologist tactic in order to deflect attention away from problems. 

caposkia wrote:

Let's assume it is.

Yes let's. Otherwise this conversation would be quite pointless.

caposkia wrote:

 to not have a place called Hell for those who choose to break the law is to suggest we shouldn't have jail for those who break the law here.  

No, it's nothing like that at all. Hell is a place of permanent torture. If there is an eternal afterlife (or an infinite number of finite lives), then that means infinite crimes do not exist. Someone who is murdered will go on to the next life, whatever it may be. However, the Christian hell is typically seen as being eternal. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is a hideous proposition, no matter which way you look at it. It's especially sinister if infinite punishment is administered to those whose only sin was non-belief. In North Korea, you can be jailed for speaking out against Kim Jong Un. In North America, we find that concept abhorrent. Do you agree? If so, why is it not abhorrent for god to do the same?

caposkia wrote:

Also, is eternity really forever?  

Yes, that's what the word means. If you meant to say "is hell really forever"? Then ok, a simple mistake. If that's actually what you meant to type, then you are either attempting to deliberately obfuscate, or your theology is so irreconcilable, that you must try to explain that two words that mean the same thing, actually don't. 

caposkia wrote:

Revelation talks about resurrections that include those who are allegedly in hell... which means they do get out... then after that everything including hell is destroyed in the lake of fire... so even if there wasn't that resurrection in revelation, it looks like they'd eventually be destroyed completely... which means there would be an end to the torture either way.  

Also, are you a "hellfire and brimestone" believer... er... non-believer? 

The bible is incoherent. That is not my problem. It's yours. Your problem, as well, is that you did not answer my question. Is it possible for hell to exist without god's permission? 

And a bonus:

caposkia wrote:

That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.  

Read what you wrote here. Keep reading it. Keep on reading this until you are utterly disgusted by what you've typed here, and apologize for it. Because feeling anything milder than complete disgust while reading that, means that you have a lot of work to do before you can start to speak about morality.

"From what we understand"? Is it possible that you're wrong within the confines of Christianity? Maybe god DID plan the assault. What, does he sit there and go "hmm....this rapist's sperm would do well mixed in here...yeah, you know what? Let's put this through!". I sincerely hope not!

The most disgusting part of this paragraph is that you refuse to talk about the victim. It's more important to you for this woman to give birth, than to heal from one of the most horrific things that can happen to a person.

We tend to be unable to shake certain connections as humans. One example would be the swastika. It is a symbol far older than Hitler's reign and the Nazi party. However, whenever we see one, even if in a peaceful context (it is still used by many eastern religions as a symbol of auspiciousness) our minds immediately go to the Nazis, and world war two. Imagine how intense that is for someone who was there during that war. 

The reason I say that is, no matter what happens in the life of a rape victim who had a child from the crime, the child WILL be a constant reminder of the most horrific time of the woman's life, no matter what else happens. Do you honestly think that it's OK for this woman to go through ALL this, for god's (perhaps minor) plan for a child? The Christian right's inability to empathize whatsoever with a woman who has gone through this frightens me. The only time they ever mention it IS when someone calls them on it. 

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.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Consider the

caposkia wrote:

Consider the outcomes.  How does this suggest I'm not open to sound argument or evidence?

It makes me think your primary concern is avoiding Hell, not searching for the truth.

 

caposkia wrote:

Have I shown that i'm not open to that?

Not definitively, no. At least not to me.

 

caposkia wrote:

Pascal's Wager aside, how is my statement not true in this light?

It's false because I don't lose everything if I'm wrong: I keep my honesty, my rational thinking, and what little courage I possess--all things I'd have to give up in order to believe in, and worship, your God. To clarify, I'm not claiming you definitely had to give up these things in order to believe as you do.

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You are

 

blacklight915 wrote:

...what little courage I possess...

 

doing a whole lot better there than you think you are, blacklight.  

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
hinder not, forbid not Fore was on this wise

I CAN'T BEE-li-eve It!, Cap

Hey Awesome  Cap

Re::  Hinder not, forbid not Fore was on this wise

See: Image :


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:doing

Atheistextremist wrote:

doing a whole lot better there than you think you are, blacklight

Aww, thanks.   I probably should have just said "what courage I do possess", leaving out "little". Honestly, though, I really don't know what amount of courage I possess.

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:but to break

caposkia wrote:

but to break a promise would be to become a liar.  Point and case... We can imply by context in the story that God had been in contact with those people and had not been getting anywhere for a while.  He pretty much gave up trying and said. Ok, here's what i'm going to do.  Again, regardless... God wanted to start fresh.  I see your parallel, but God didn't get what he wanted... which was for everyone to repent and turn to Him for guidance in doing so.  In other words, he never got the money.  

 That's because he's a bad father. He sets some rules, largely disappears while letting the kids do whatever for quite some time (thinking he's not serious), then he jumps in with the most extreme punishment he's ever doled out, even punishing those who haven't done anything wrong. I've seen people do this in real life, and they are never regarded as good parents.

If God wanted the outcome of repentance and turning to him, then he needs to put in the effort of a good parent, and not just disapear and hope everything works out.

 

caposkia wrote:
That would not be the right way to look at it.   The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it.  If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.  
If nothing but Good Things come out of our actions, then why do we care about what choices we make?