Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Bradskii]

Wow.

Either way, God comes out the bad guy, doesn't He?

And you wonder why I'm against academia like I am?

Academia? Just...what? That was just another swing and a miss. As far as I am concerned, God can never be the bad guy. Because (is this the third time I've had to remind you?) I am an atheist.

The discussion is not about how terrible God was in drowning a planet. Because it never happened. It's actually a moot point. Because the discussion is about the acceptance by people like yourself - who do believe it happened, that it would be justifiable. And the possible consequences of that acceptance.

The discussion is about you. Not God. Do you not understand that..?

 

[Bradskii]

So, in order for me to attempt to justify the biblical Flood story, I have to treat it as factually accurate?"

Very obviously not. 'It happened and was justified' or 'It didn't happen but it would have been justified'. You can take either position or argue against either. As I said in the last post, I know it didn't happen but that fact is moot.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, in order for me to attempt to justify the biblical Flood story, I have to treat it as factually accurate?

When Grand Moff Tarkin used the Death Star to blow up planet Alderaan, was he justified?

What if I think the Biblical Flood narrative is a Sacred Oracle written by a human being, but on general accounts only counts as Cosmogony rather than something that, historiographically speaking, doesn't equate to the scientific minded substance of 21st century history writing?

What if you discussed the flood story as it was written, and considered the actors in it to be characters in a story?

 

[AV1611VET]

You gave me an excuse.

Would you know the difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

The discussion is about you. Not God. Do you not understand that..?

So you want me to be on your side, not the side of Someone you don't believe in?

 

[AV1611VET]

What if you discussed the flood story as it was written, and considered the actors in it to be characters in a story?

I suppose asking you to address Post 288 is out of the question, isn't it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're wrong.Can I submit a pic and a hypothetical like you did?

Thanks.

It would be rude of me to not extend the same courtesy that you offered that I took.

Suppose the entire human race -- sans Noah's line -- looked like this:

I suspect Noah and his line would have noticed... and if that was the standard of beauty at the time, Noah's family would have had been reduced to some extensive inbreeding...

But that's another matter. I accept your hypothetical.

And lived in extreme pain due to being so mutated?

In addition, they were racked with STDs that would make Woodstock look like Snow White's rose garden.

Get the picture?

With you so far...

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

Ok, now that you've offered an interpretation that explains (possibly) the problem, how then do we come to the "necessary evil" that was God's Solution?

First of all, let's break down that term -- "necessary evil."

Kudos for conceding that the act was, in fact, "evil"; I hadn't expected you to admit that.

Now, for it to be "necessary," you would have to show that no better solution was available to God.

Can you do that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever -- are you going to justify omnicide, or not?

Why would you ask when my previous answers clearly stated that I think God is precluded from such an attempt?

But if you insist that what is impossible can be done anyway, here's the short of it as I see it:

If man does omnicide = bad, bad, bad, very bad!

If God does omnicide = justice, justice, justice!​

See? Those are simple equations! And I'm a good person for saying so!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I asked for two things:
1. Tell me I'm wrong.
2. Tell me why.

You managed to do neither of them, and I thank you for that.

I get the feeling that you didn't read post #279. Or you simply didn't take it seriously and proceeded to bull-doze over it in bullish fashion and ignore it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very obviously not. 'It happened and was justified' or 'It didn't happen but it would have been justified'. You can take either position or argue against either. As I said in the last post, I know it didn't happen but that fact is moot.

Ok. Well, here's goes something: If the Great Flood were found to have happened, and if I only was using my human brain to make the best moral evaluation I could despite my obvious limitations as a rather blunt tool of humanity, I'd find that the resulting omnicide would be sad but justified where God is concerned. He is All-knowing and Holy, after all, and He would have both the knowledge and the integrity to have made a good moral decision.

There. I DID IT! I justified what lesser minds would all too ordinarily consider to be an "atrocity."

I feel so happy right now, I could cry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When Grand Moff Tarkin used the Death Star to blow up planet Alderaan, was he justified?

No, because that big bully wasn't God.

What if you discussed the flood story as it was written, and considered the actors in it to be characters in a story?

I already do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kudos for conceding that the act was, in fact, "evil"; I hadn't expected you to admit that.

Why wouldn't I admit it?

As God said ...

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

If He wants the credit for it, who am I to argue otherwise?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would you ask when my previous answers clearly stated that I think God is precluded from such an attempt?

Because the Bible tells a different story... literally.

And simply saying "no, it doesn't," only works on the illiterate.

But if you insist that what is impossible can be done anyway, here's the short of it as I see it:

If man does omnicide = bad, bad, bad, very bad!

If God does omnicide = justice, justice, justice!​

See? Those are simple equations! And I'm a good person for saying so!

Well, you're a good Christian, anyway.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I get the feeling that you didn't read post #279. Or you simply didn't take it seriously and proceeded to bull-doze over it in bullish fashion and ignore it.

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you know the difference?

Coming from you? Certainly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why wouldn't I admit it?

As God said ...

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

If He wants the credit for it, who am I to argue otherwise?

You badger me for an answer, get one, and this is all of it you're able to respond to?

 

[Bradskii]

So you want me to be on your side, not the side of Someone you don't believe in?

What on earth..? I don't want you to be on any side. Whatever 'side' you consider yourself to be on is your call and yours only.

 

[Bradskii]

...I'd find that the resulting omnicide would be ...justified where God is concerned.

That's not an answer to the question that was asked.

I wasn't asking if an act can be justified by the person commiting the act. I wasn't asking if you think it could be justified as far as God is concerned. And I don't want any comment on what you'd think if a mere mortal commited it. I want to know if you, personally, think that what God did (or could have done, or was reported to have done - how you want to word that is up to you) was justified. As in reasonable, acceptable and (obviously) just.

And just as a heads up re the options regarding the flood story. One either believes it happened as described OR one believes that it could have happened as described OR one believes it to be a story meant to carry a message (re God's power, His anger at bad behaviour...as you see fit).

The last is no problem. Either of the first, if one claims that the act was justified, leads to all sorts of possible problems. Maybe we could investigate those problems.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's not an answer to the question that was asked.

I wasn't asking if an act can be justified by the person commiting the act. I wasn't asking if you think it could be justified as far as God is concerned. And I don't want any comment on what you'd think if a mere mortal commited it. I want to know if you, personally, think that what God did (or could have done, or was reported to have done - how you want to word that is up to you) was justified. As in reasonable, acceptable and (obviously) just.

And just as a heads up re the options regarding the flood story. One either believes it happened as described OR one believes that it could have happened as described OR one believes it to be a story meant to carry a message (re God's power, His anger at bad behaviour...as you see fit).

The last is no problem. Either of the first, if one claims that the act was justified, leads to all sorts of possible problems. Maybe we could investigate those problems.

I understand what you're attempting to get at, Bradskii, but what I stated in post #279 is essential to how I think that whole topic can be approached.

# 279 Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

Let me cut it shorter: I know you're intelligent. I know you're likewise educated. I know you're familiar with epistemology and axiology as I am, and in all of this kerfuffle, what it really boils down to is that both you and I have read different sets of books and have entertained different reflections in our respective brains to arrive at what are incompatible philosophies between the two of us. My existential, analytic, non-Platonic outlook won't jive with your common sense, Russellian style approach.

So, we disagree. And we'll likely continue to disagree over this or that bit of epistemology, axiology and/or bite of burrito as we move on into the future.

Now, if you want to continue to explore how you think that "if one claims that the act was justified, leads to all sorts of possible problems," please lead the way. But in so doing, just be aware that I also don't traverse down any Euthyphronic style byways or highways---there's just too many Bulls loose and standing abroad on those roads, so I only do 'off road' driving.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand what you're attempting to get at, Bradskii, but what I stated in post #279 is essential to how I think that whole topic can be approached.

# 279 Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

Let me cut it shorter: I know you're intelligent. I know you're likewise educated. I know you're familiar with epistemology and axiology as I am, and in all of this kerfuffle, what it really boils down to is that both you and I have read different sets of books and have entertained different reflections in our respective brains to arrive at what are incompatible philosophies between the two of us. My existential, analytic, non-Platonic outlook won't jive with your common sense, Russellian style approach.

So, we disagree. And we'll likely continue to disagree over this or that bit of epistemology, axiology and/or bite of burrito as we move on into the future.

Now, if you want to continue to explore how you think that "if one claims that the act was justified, leads to all sorts of possible problems," please lead the way. But in so doing, just be aware that I also don't traverse down any Euthyphronic style byways or highways---there's too much Bull on those roads, so I only do 'off road' driving.

So no response to the answer. In which case I'm left with making assumptions based on your posts. You can correct them as you see fit.