Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

[Lion IRC]

If all we can discuss is the text, then all you will get is word games

I disagree.
I just got thru explaining to @Bungle_Bear that I'm not asserting tricky meanings of words.
I will be the first to declare/admit it if and when I'm forced into linguistic gymnastics to harmonise the text with plain language.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, the historical document which quite recently came to be known as "The Bible".

You have not shown that the flood story in the Bible is an accurate account of a historical event.

 

[Kylie]

Now ^THIS^ is a rational skeptic.
That's why I said to @Kylie ...you don't really wanna debate the Flood with me. You literally cannot win that argument.

Well, not when you build into it a ready-made excuse to not have to actually deal with anything that can disprove you.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. And thankyou for bringing up the real elephant in the room.
Biblical theist defenders of the Flood account should not be squeamish. We shouldn't give a hall pass to the skepic's myth hypothesis simply because it saves us having to deal with the inconvenient fact that people were drowned in their hundreds, thousands, millions...by God.

If you don't think the end justified the means, don't even bother trying to defend biblical mortality.

I'm not a huge fan of the 'who can know God's mind' argument. It actually isn't an argument. More a way of saying 'I haven't got a clue'. But that's generally the answer to the obvious follow-up question. Which is 'If He's omnipotent, why did He get Noah to do all that work and then flood the planet?' When, as Kylie said, he could have just pressed reset and Noah and family could have started up the next chapter as written.

And it leads on to the claim that we can't use our mere mortal means of deciphering God's actions. But that's all we can do. So if we see God being loving and generous, we can say that He is loving and generous. And if we see God being spiteful and murderous then we are entitled to call it as we see it.

So the God presented in those chapters doesn't just appear to be cruel and unjust. He is being cruel and unjust. Those ends, brought about by an omnipotent deity, do not justify the means. He becomes no better than a Greek god with human foibles.

So you can defend the flood quite easily. As I said, I could play the Devil's Advocate and do it myself. What you cannot do is support it from a moral position. That's truly indefensible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I generally make a statement, ask one question and leave it at that:

God is meant to have drowned every living thing. All humans. All men and women. All children. All babes in arms. All women who were actually pregnant at the time. And it must have included women who were in the process of actually giving birth. All perishing in abject terror.

Is that the omnipotent God in which you want me to believe?

No.

I want you to believe that God destroyed a world full of corrupted flesh, whose imaginations were only evil continually.

It must have been a horrible sight too.

Giants everywhere, people laden with STDs, and genetically-altered bodies.

I'd say someone who went back in time then, would think they were on the wrong planet.

 

[Lion IRC]

So when I present a scientific fact that shows that some sign that is caused by a large volume of water does not exist and thus disproves the flood, you'll just turn around and say, "But the Bible never says that happened, so your fact is meaningless."

No. I will say that your alleged fact is not irreconcilable with the text you think it disproves. You keep on referring to "The Flood" and so its perfectly reasonable for me to expect you to use the proof text in Genesis as the framework for what exactly it is that you think you're refuting.

That doesn't change the fact that if there was a flood, there would have been a large volume of water which would have left that particular trace which we can demonstrate does not exist, and yet you've left yourself a convenient "out" to avoid discussing it.

Its not MY fault that you are conveniently aiming your arrows at a target which is nowhere to be found on the pages of the bible.

 

[Bradskii]

No.

I want you to believe that God destroyed a world full of corrupted flesh, whose imaginations were only evil continually.

Unborn children? Gimme a break...

 

[Lion IRC]

@AV1611VET
@Bradskii knows that, technically speaking, his ad hominem argument against the nasty God who drowns people - young and old - is a logical non sequitur. The Flood can have happened just as described and God's motives don't provide coercive logic that it never happened.

I can just as easily assert that God's motives made the Flood a virtual necessity in much the same way as a well-meaning surgeon MUST amputate the gangrenous leg of an innocent child.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oops. ##needs an expletives warning##

Yup.

 

[Lion IRC]

Later...need to recharge tablet and 'sweat of thy brown stuff.

 

[Kylie]

No. I will say that your alleged fact is not irreconcilable with the text you think it disproves. You keep on referring to "The Flood" and so its perfectly reasonable for me to expect you to use the proof text in Genesis as the framework for what exactly it is that you think you're refuting.

So you have no interest in defending your position, you are only interested in pooh-poohing any viewpoint that disagrees with you.

Its not MY fault that you are conveniently aiming your arrows at a target which is nowhere to be found on the pages of the bible.

And it's not my fault that you are making sure your argument is kept well away from reality. By the rules of your own opening post, you have no interest in showing that the flood could have happened in reality, and therefore you have not and can not refute my position.

The flood never happened in reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, it also leads to a whole lot of scrambling to explain why God didn't just snap his fingers and blink out all the bits he didn't like, thus avoiding the need for a flood and ark and worldwide mass migration of animals in the first place.

Lion, I know this is your thread, but do you mind if I handle this one?

The Flood is my minor forte, and I address this mindset often, as to why God didn't just snap His fingers and yadda yadda.

Okay if I answer this one?

 

[AV1611VET]

Unborn children?

Yes, unborn children.

Who would soon be lamenting ...

Job 3:3 Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.

 

[Bradskii]

@AV1611VET
@Bradskii knows that, technically speaking, his ad hominem argument against the nasty God who drowns people - young and old - is a logical non sequitur. The Flood can have happened just as described and God's motives don't provide coercive logic that it never happened.

I can just as easily assert that God's motives made the Flood a virtual necessity in much the same way as a well-meaning surgeon MUST amputate the gangrenous leg of an innocent child.

The 'Nasty God' argument isn't there to show that the flood didn't happen (because God is nice!). That's not the point. Which is actually to point out that the God in which you believe shows Himself to be a cruel and unjust God. And as I said, the Who Can Know God's Mind get-out-of-jail card isn't accepted in these parts.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion, I know this is your thread, but do you mind if I handle this one?

@AV1611VET
YAY
See, I knew I had friends.
This is everyone's thread.
Go for it Wingman

So you have no interest in defending your position

My "position" is Genesis 6:9 thru to Genesis 9:28
You are welcome to contest my position as stated in those verses.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, unborn children.

B: Objection. Those unborn children don't have corrupted flesh and are yet to imagine anything. There is nothing as innocent as an unborn child.
J: Objection sustained. The jury will disregard the previous remarks regarding corrupted flesh and evil imaginings.

And you're right. It did drop. 1%.

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET
YAY
See, I knew I had friends.
This is everyone's thread.
Go for it Wingman

Thank you, sir!

 

[SelfSim]

It may not be specifically about the flood, but this discussion is also about the thinking espoused in the Bible.

Thus I claim that the references to the notion of 'the Holy Trinity', violate the basic law of non-contradiction of thinking, which states:
The law of non-contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be’.
In other words: two or more contradictory statements, cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

Please note: its ok, (by me), for one to choose to believe in this doctrine.

However, when Biblical text violates a basic principle of thinking, the thinking which follows, (such as that behind a recount of some flood caused by a concept that exists as a 'Holy Trinity'), cannot be considered as a consistent or accurate historical recount a true event.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, it also leads to a whole lot of scrambling to explain why God didn't just snap his fingers and blink out all the bits he didn't like, thus avoiding the need for a flood and ark and worldwide mass migration of animals in the first place.

Do you realize, Kylie, that if God would have just snapped His fingers and everyone would have vanished, that most (if not all) of them would have gone instantly into Hell?

But by mercifully sending a flood, He gave them plenty of time to repent and get saved as the flood waters rose.

Remember when Peter walked on water and began to sink? what did he do?

Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

Those who repented and cried out for salvation in Noah's time went ahead and died, of course, because they had reached the point of no return.

But they woke up in a new place, with new bodies.

Doing it as you suggested would have removed that option.

And remember:

As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[AV1611VET]

B: Objection. Those unborn children don't have corrupted flesh and are yet to imagine anything.

Um ... by way of example, do you know what congenital syphilis is? fetal cocaine exposure? Thalidomide? any of that stuff?