God and the flood

[Davian]

Just the phony ones where atheist pretend to be truth seekers

I do not seek "truth" as proffered by the religious, I seek accurate descriptions of reality.

when they are just hecklers.

Perhaps you should address their criticisms, rather than attack their character.

Myself, I always answer the questions.

Except where you ignore them.

 

[bhsmte]

Defending the faithful against the phonies.

And of course, anyone who disagrees with you, or asks you to support your beliefs, is a phony.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In general I have everything in common with the faithful, who sincerely disagree with my theology on the path to God and nothing in common with the dark side that questions everyone's theology on the path to death.

That may not be how they see it. As far as they are concerned, you are on the "dark side" with us, espousing doctrines they consider inimical to Biblical Christianity.

 

[Colter]

That may not be how they see it. As far as they are concerned, you are on the "dark side" with us, espousing doctrines they consider inimical to Biblical Christianity.

Some do, but your deflection away from your motives onto my presence here doesn't negate the motivation of atheist who are NOT interested in faith rather just to argue with, undermine and mock Christians.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some do, but your deflection away from your motives onto my presence here doesn't negate the motivation of atheist who are NOT interested in faith rather just to argue with, undermine and mock Christians.

Nor does it deflect from your motivation to crystallise your membership in the in-group by desperately attempting to distinguish yourself from the out-group by constantly making your contempt for them visible.

 

[Colter]

Nor does it deflect from your motivation to crystallise your membership in the in-group by desperately attempting to distinguish yourself from the out-group by constantly making your contempt for them visible.

Dude, your phycology practice needs an upgrade. I'm a bit of an individualist. I'm not looking for kudo's from other believers. In truth I feel rather "out" on this forum. I just clicked on this thread and saw the usual suspects picking on another Christian.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Dude, your phycology practice needs an upgrade. I'm a bit of an individualist. I'm not looking for kudo's from other believers. In truth I feel rather "out" on this forum. I just clicked on this thread and saw the usual suspects picking on another Christian.

I'm emulating your practice, Colter. You think you know the motives of nonbelievers even better than they do. I'm reciprocating.

 

[createdtoworship]

In this thread I want to allow anyone who believes that if the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then such a God cannot possess certain attributes.

I want them to list the attributes they believe are incompatible with such an act assuming it occurred, and give an argument for why.

first of all the argument must be made that God can't have certain attributes as you say to begin with.

secondly to say that there are attributes (assumedly negative with a postive contradictory God)....then you have your point.

however lets not play that game for a second.

is it wrong for God to slaugter millions with a flood, but yet have a woman murder an unborn at no more consciousness that it is a real human?

thirdly lets go deeper here,

where does evil come from?

I showed to two acts accepted by two main stream groups who opposing party thinks it's evil.

the abortionists, versus God who annihilated in a flood.

but since the definition of evil is nay in one and yeah on the other for both parties.

we must assume this term has no proper definition and must be thrown out.

so you cannot use the word evil in this thread, or anything similiarly worded, wicked, sadism, murderer, as those same terms can be used against parties you like for the most part, maybe not the abortionist, but some one for sure.

so we see a misslevelling of the weights of the definition and a changing of the bars of the definition of evil.

it is not evil for a woman raped to kill an unborn, or a woman who wan'ts financial strength to kill off her liabilities, or for a woman to kill off a child from a wrong partner, or a right partner at wrong time, or a right partner, right time, but no jobs.

so all those are typically okay, it's called planning your family, by killing of those whom you don't need at that moment, and cant get a job and pay your welfare.

so again they are weights and to be tossed out,

then whe have wellfare queens who pop out babies to gain the max social security to to demonsterous things with it. but that is another story.

the point is what is evil in only aimed at the enemy of ones perspective, never of ones own. so in order to halt this obvoius hypocrisy we need to define what is evil in its rawest sense., and why a person can commit an evil, let alone a God. in the case of teh flood.

so anwere these heavier more thought provoking questions if yuo will.
(sorry if my logic is shoddy, as I worked like 16 hours today, and am falling over in my chair.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dude, your phycology practice needs an upgrade. I'm a bit of an individualist. I'm not looking for kudo's from other believers. In truth I feel rather "out" on this forum. I just clicked on this thread and saw the usual suspects picking on another Christian.

I will take care of this situation.

with the sword of logic,

but not now.

after some sleep.

will be busy but may have time to post late night or early day.

I have dealt with hecklers for 10 years doing what i do, which is argue, but sometimes rationalize with the polite ones.

but most I just get straight with them about why they are speaking contradictions every few silables.

they will scatter,

they all know me,

they will flee one by one, not maybe this week but maybe next, or the third.

usually on these forums I will be the last one on the thread before it goes dead.

it's wierd to see the thread list and your name on like 3 or 4 of them and think, wow, those are dead threads, and I am the last one on all of them....

makes you feel ditched.

but thats alright, I won't cry...this time.

time to snoooze (12-16 hour day)

 

[bhsmte]

You gotta love the entertainment.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In this thread I want to allow anyone who believes that if the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then such a God cannot possess certain attributes.

I want them to list the attributes they believe are incompatible with such an act assuming it occurred, and give an argument for why.

If the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then God cannot possess the attribute of not being a murderer.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then God cannot possess the attribute of not being a murderer.

Why?

All flesh on the earth had corrupted itself beyond the ability to survive, with one exception: Noah's line.

Had God not sent the flood, the earth would have become a barren wasteland.

 

[Chriliman]

first of all the argument must be made that God can't have certain attributes as you say to begin with.

secondly to say that there are attributes (assumedly negative with a postive contradictory God)....then you have your point.

however lets not play that game for a second.

is it wrong for God to slaugter millions with a flood, but yet have a woman murder an unborn at no more consciousness that it is a real human?

thirdly lets go deeper here,

where does evil come from?

I showed to two acts accepted by two main stream groups who opposing party thinks it's evil.

the abortionists, versus God who annihilated in a flood.

but since the definition of evil is nay in one and yeah on the other for both parties.

we must assume this term has no proper definition and must be thrown out.

so you cannot use the word evil in this thread, or anything similiarly worded, wicked, sadism, murderer, as those same terms can be used against parties you like for the most part, maybe not the abortionist, but some one for sure.

so we see a misslevelling of the weights of the definition and a changing of the bars of the definition of evil.

it is not evil for a woman raped to kill an unborn, or a woman who wan'ts financial strength to kill off her liabilities, or for a woman to kill off a child from a wrong partner, or a right partner at wrong time, or a right partner, right time, but no jobs.

so all those are typically okay, it's called planning your family, by killing of those whom you don't need at that moment, and cant get a job and pay your welfare.

so again they are weights and to be tossed out,

then whe have wellfare queens who pop out babies to gain the max social security to to demonsterous things with it. but that is another story.

the point is what is evil in only aimed at the enemy of ones perspective, never of ones own. so in order to halt this obvoius hypocrisy we need to define what is evil in its rawest sense., and why a person can commit an evil, let alone a God. in the case of teh flood.

so anwere these heavier more thought provoking questions if yuo will.
(sorry if my logic is shoddy, as I worked like 16 hours today, and am falling over in my chair.

God creates good and God creates evil for the purpose of allowing us to choose. Does that answer your question?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why?

All flesh on the earth had corrupted itself beyond the ability to survive, with one exception: Noah's line.

Had God not sent the flood, the earth would have become a barren wasteland.

Even if I grant you all of your claims, you still haven't refuted what I have to say.


Also the flood as punishment makes no sense. Cain killed Abel and was not even punished; in fact he was rewarded with a sigil on his head to protect him.

What is worse than murdering your own brother? What were these people doing that was so terrible so as to justify total annihilation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if I grant you all of your claims, you still haven't refuted what I have to say.

Of course not -- it's theology vs. scientific morals.

Also the flood as punishment makes no sense.

Then think of it ... (if you're willing) ... as a judgement from God.

Specifically one that ended the second dispensation (Conscious) and began the third dispensation (Human Government).

Cain killed Abel and was not even punished; in fact he was rewarded with a sigil on his head to protect him.

That's right.

Cain lived under the [second] dispensation of Conscious.

You know? let your conscious be your guide?

The death penalty for murder was not instituted until the third dispensation: Human Government.

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

What is worse than murdering your own brother?

Murdering two of your own brothers?

What were these people doing that was so terrible so as to justify total annihilation?

Nothing.

Just having more people.

Eventually, flesh corruption would have ... as I thought I made it clear ... turned the earth into a vast, lifeless wilderness.

 

[Davian]

Why?

All flesh on the earth had corrupted itself beyond the ability to survive, with one exception: Noah's line.

When did you add that bit to your bible?

Had God not sent the flood, the earth would have become a barren wasteland.

That does not make any sense. In this hypothetical, Noah's line would have simply repopulated the planet as the rest of the population died out. No flood necessary.

Was the flood, and the ark, simply a make-work program for Noah?

 

[AV1611VET]

When did you add that bit to your bible?

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

That does not make any sense. In this hypothetical, Noah's line would have simply repopulated the planet as the rest of the population died out. No flood necessary.

Not if his bloodline stood being corrupted too.

If you lived on a planet where everyone had STDs, what are the chances that your progeny will eventually have an STD?

 

[Colter]

Why?

All flesh on the earth had corrupted itself beyond the ability to survive, with one exception: Noah's line.

Had God not sent the flood, the earth would have become a barren wasteland.

Errrrrm, according to Noah's presumptive descendants. NO other race or culture or tribe or local barber on earth remembers being related to Noah. Then we have Noah passed out drunk and naked???

 

[createdtoworship]

God creates good and God creates evil for the purpose of allowing us to choose. Does that answer your question?

of course,

but outside of the Bible there really is no objective proof a singular definition for evil.

for an athiest to say God of the Bible is evil, is admitting they have objective definitions for evil outside of the Bible -which they don't.

they have robbed the definition from peter to pay paul.

they said peter nor paul existed.

 

[createdtoworship]

of course,

but outside of the Bible there really is no objective proof a singular definition for evil.

for an athiest to say God of the Bible is evil, is admitting they have objective definitions for evil outside of the Bible -which they don't.

they have robbed the definition from peter to pay paul.

after of course publically admitting they don't believe in peter or paul