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

[AV1611VET]

Bird's Opening

 

[SelfSim]

I dont have to address that.
Its not about the Flood.
You said so yourself.
..
I'm generally pretty relaxed about on-topic / off-topic discussion, but I'm not taking your bait to drift off into the theology of a triune God or divine command theory.

The point is that it dispenses with the entire notion of the Flood as being a true and accurate account of an historical event.

 

[Lion IRC]

So God determined to kill those who weren't corrupt and violent. That God is cruel and unjust. Just as we would say of anyone who would kill innocent people (and no playing the WCKTMOG card).

And I'll note that it appears that AV doesn't agree with you in any case. It's difficult to argue against a proposal when the people making it have different versions.

@AV1611VET and I are in lock step as to the end justifying the means.

ETA - and if the end DOES justify the means, your objection fails.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not going over this again with you.

I gave you three medical examples for you to handwave, and you did a good job.

Those were examples of illnesses that the unborn may suffer from. Even granting that similar problems may have been current at the time, then we aren't talking about people being corrupt in a moral sense. We are talking about sick children. It kinda gets worse, don't you think? You are now saying that God intentionally drowned sick children.

And the proposal that all infants and the unborn were similarly afflicted is nonsensical.

Rejected yet again.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Morality. Auto correct error. Thanks for spotting.

Turn your Freudian Slip generator off. made sense the way you wrote it.

 

[Bradskii]

@AV1611VET and I are in lock step as to the end justifying the means.

ETA - and if the end DOES justify the means, your objection fails.

I don't think so. You are happy (if I could even use such a term) that God killed innocent people. AV is trying to convince me that they weren't innocent. He baulks at the idea.

 

[Lion IRC]

The point is that it dispenses with the entire notion of the Flood as being a true and accurate account of an historical event.

No it doesn't.
In debating terms, its a non-sequitur.
Your difficulty with the Triune nature of God doesn't compel disbelief in the Flood any more than my struggle with the concept of infinite regress means that Transubstantiation is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rejected yet again.

Ain't that a gas?

 

[Speedwell]

Im defending agsinst whatever basis you and others might have for disputing the text of Genesis 6:9 thru to Genesis 9:16

And when we get done with that we can dispute whether there was ever a family of bears who lived in a house and ate porridge for breakfast. Or, if you would rather strike a more sophisticated note, we can dispute Sir Thomas Mallory's King Arthur stories.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think so. You are happy (if I could even use such a term) that God killed innocent people. AV is trying to convince me that they weren't innocent. He baulks at the idea.

Some of my Christian brothers and sisters theology of original sin extends to total depravity. That's not a logical deal breaker for the historicity of Noah's Flood.
And frankly, I'm surprised you're trying to leverage theology rather than secular arguments.

 

[Bradskii]

Ain't that a gas?

Are you then saying that you are in 'lock step' with Lion that the ends justified the means? He willingly accepts that innocent people were killed. Are you going with that or do you still want to maintain that all were guilty?

 

[Lion IRC]

And when we get done with that we can dispute whether there was ever a family of bears who lived in a house and ate porridge for breakfast. Or, if you would rather strike a more sophisticated note, we can dispute Sir Thomas Mallory's King Arthur stories.

You just flushed your own sincerity down the toilet with that remark.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Im defending the literal truth of the biblical account of Noah's Flood.

As what? Magic or are you just making stuff up like Tsunamis like every other science illiterate apologist.

 

[Lion IRC]

As what? Magic or are you just making stuff up like Tsunamis like every other science illiterate apologist.

Um... it wasn't me who made a blatantly, factually false claim about the maximum height of tsunamis. Careful who you call scientifically illiterate.

 

[Bradskii]

Some of my Christian brothers and sisters theology of original sin extends to total depravity. That's not a logical deal breaker for the historicity of Noah's Flood.
And frankly, I'm surprised you're trying to leverage theology rather than secular arguments.

Which is not your view. As I said, it's not possible to argue this point when the people with whom you are discussing it have substantially different views. And as I said upstream, this isn't an attempt to disprove the flood. It's a question as to the moral implications of accepting it. Which obviously don't simply stop at the flood.

If people can accept that God can do what we consider to be immoral acts then it's not a huge leap to accepting that He can tell us to commit immoral acts. People fly planes into buildings on that basis. Which I consider to be a lot more of an important factor in this story than what type of wood Noah used or whether a mountain was covered completely or had some snow on it.

 

[Speedwell]

You just flushed your own sincerity down the toilet with that remark.

It's a story in a book; there is no evidence that it ever actually happened. For those who believe that it happened (despite the lack of evidence) there is no way to determine whether the account in Genesis is accurate.

 

[Lion IRC]

. I love science and the scientific method, but the claim that "abc" proves the flood never happened does not meet this test. You need to show how "abc" falsifies a specific bible passage/verse...

The (fairly ignorant and easily falsified,) claim that tsunamis have a maximum height of 30 metres doesn't even put a dent in Genesis 6.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Google Image Result for https://images.theconversation.com/files/208104/original/file-20180227-36674-a74733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1200&h=900.0&fit=crop

That would look better if I could work out how to paste a piccie...

Rt click on image, select copy image address. then select image on tool bar and paste.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's a story in a book; there is no evidence that it ever actually happened. For those who believe that it happened (despite the lack of evidence) there is no way to determine whether the account in Genesis is accurate.

There is evidence. The flood was documented in the historical document you call The Bible. There is also extra-biblical corroboration of an ancient deluge of epic proportions in the oral traditions of almost every other culture on earth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This objection can be summarised as... "I don't think God exists, therefore the Flood didn't happen because the Flood event requires supernatural assistance."

But that would be a concession that if/since God does exist, then the Flood ceases to be impossible. Arguments for the existence of divinity are outside the scope of this thread.

How can I be arguing against the flood? You haven't even gotten to the part with a flood, or even the part where the god says he will drown them all.

I am merely saying that this story contains a non-evidenced being, so I take that part with a grain of salt. It has less initial credibility. Perhaps none of it is true, perhaps some of it is true (flood, man, animals on boat), perhaps even some of the details (Noah and his three sons, the duration of the flood).

Up to this point (from which my original reply originated) the story has introduced 2 characters, one has three sons, the other is an angry deity. No need to doubt the flood since we haven't gotten to it yet.