Johnny Skeptic

Absolutely. God's motive for causing the flood does not make any sense at all. His motive was to kill all of the bad people in the world. Now why were they bad, possibly because he let most of the people in the world run loose without any guidance except for a few select people of his own choosing? The God of the Old Testmament was primarily a "hands off" dad. Most of the people in the world did not have any Ten Commandments, and there is no record that God personally appeared to anyone in the world outside of the Middle East like he did to Moses and Abraham. In the first century, it was an issue of God's geographical favoritism again since the only "lucky" people that got to become some of rhutchin's mythical elect were people who lived in close proximity to Palestine. Today, when children become juvenile delinquents, typically parents get some of the blame. In many if not most cases, the blame is well-deserved. Animal researchers have found that when young elephants in the wild on rare occassions get separated from the herd for years and do not have the benefit of being trained and disciplined by older elephants they sometimes kill rhinoceroses, something that elephants that are raised in herds never do.

Many Christians, including some Christian geologists, and some evangelical Christian geologists, have stated that the flood story does more harm than good.

It is not possible that any loving, rational being would have caused a global flood in order to get rid of bad people, and do his best to make it look like the flood never happened. After the flood, it did not take humanity any time at all to get back to conducting business as usual. And what about Tyre? After pronouncing scathing judgments against Tyre through Ezekiel, we have no Sodom and Gomorrah situtation where God quickly destroyed the cities. It took God and various armies, lastly Alexander's army, CENTURIES to get even with no, not the original Tyrians against whom the prophecy was spoken, but the DESCENDANTS of the original Tyrians against whom the prophecy was spoken. Many of the original Tyrians lived normal life spans, and the residents of the island settlement lived for centuries in relative comfort, secure with the knowledge that God was not that tough after all. Nebuchadnezzar tried to conquer the mainland settlement for 15 years, but eventually left in disgust. Now that is after Ezekiel called him "a king of kings". A "king of kings"? Obviously not. You don't call someone a "king of kings" and end up having him get defeated. Ezekiel 26 says that Nebuchadnezzar would go down all of the streets of Tyre and break down its towers. That obviously did not happen. The best evidence indicates that the prophecy was revised after Nebuchadnezzar's attempts to defeat Tyre failed. Many Christians admit that the prophecy did not come true.

The best explanation for the Tyre story was that the Jews were jealous of the great wealth of Tyre. Even the New Testament speaks harshly of Tyre. In the KJV, Matthew 11:22 says "But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you."

It is interesting to note that most of the many tirades that God's prophets spoke against various groups of people occurred in Palestine and involved Jews. A notable and quite odd exception was the global flood, where God for some strange reason decided that not only CERTAIN groups of people were bad and deserved to be killed, but ALL groups of people except for Noah and his in-laws, and even INNOCENT ANIMALS, and even PLANTS. How utterly absurd. And of course, there is the myth of the repopulation of the earth. If the repopulation of the earth was made into a Perry Mason movie, an apt title would be 'The Case of the Missing Migration'.

Here is a good story, a myth, rather, for rhutchin to explain:

Genesis 11:4-8 "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel - because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

I look forward to rhutchin's explanation for this absurd story.

Well, back to 2 Peter 3:9. Even though the verse says that God IS NOT willing that some will persih, Rhutchin says that God IS willing that some will perish. The verse contradicts other Scriptures, but actually, I agree with rhutchin that God IS willing that some will perish. This is quite obvious. That is exactly why I will not, and in fact cannot, accept him. If rhutchin's family members were drowning, if he was able to save all of them, he would. He would not accept any human who did try to protect his own family. Rhutchin has said that God can do whatever he wants to do. Yes, any dictatorial tyrant is able to do whatever he wants, but would rhutchin be able to love just any old dictatorial tyrant? Well of course he wouldn't? If God has the right to do whatever he wants to, then he has the right to tell lies. There is no evidence that he hasn't told lies.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Now how could Paul have known that? Why should anyone exclude a reasonable possibility that God is masquerading as an angel of light too?

If Satan actually has vast powers like the Bible says he does, why is he unable to tangibly show himself? I mean really, folks, any being who could do what the Devil (Satan) did to Job would easily be able to tangibly reveal himself to the world. Why would God want to conceal the Devil's existence from the world. What possible benefits could God derive from doing that? Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Maybe it was God who actually attacked Job. I don't see how telling lies is any worse than making people blind, deaf, and dumb.

Johnny Skeptic

Odds most certainly DO matter. Luke 10:25-28 say “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.”

If logic and reason are used, it is not possible for a man to love any being with all his heart, soul, and mind based upon no better than even odds that God is not masquerading as an angel of light. If you wish to discard logic and reason and use only faith, then just say so.

At any rate, even if God is not masquerading as an angel of light, you still lose because rational minded and fair minded people are not able to will themselves to love any being who endorses favoritism, who refuses to reveal himself to people who would accept his if they knew that he (supposedly) exists. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message that he would accept if he knew that the being who delivered the message (supposedly) exists. If you wish to claim that people ought to accept an unfair God because he will hurt them if they don’t, go ahead, but no rational minded and fair minded person will agree with you. You sure have a strange attraction to Gods who are at best bi-polar and mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun would not have injured and killed HIS OWN faithful followers like God sometimes does with hurricanes, or if you wish, allows to be killed with hurricanes. Attila would not have made HIS OWN faithful followers blind, deaf, and dumb like God sometimes does, reference Exodus 4:11. He would not likely have punished people for sins that their grandparents committed like God sometimes does, reference Exodus 20:5.

While tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that either tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics, or that God has gone out of his way to make it appear that such is the case, and that God is not any more concerned with the tangible needs of humans as he is with tangible needs of animals. While many animals enjoy good health and long lives, some of God’s most devout and faithful followers die when they are young, and die slow, painful deaths.

If God does not exist, rational minded people know that ALL provable benefits would be NON-TANGIBLE, and yet, Jesus supposedly decided that TANGIBLE EVIDENCE was quite important. For some strange reason, God has abandoned the use of tangible evidence today, at least, in any way that can be considered consistent and not random. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may
know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Acts 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Johnny: Now Acts 14:3 refers to events that took place AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church. It is quite odd that with thousands of eyewitnesses still around who saw Jesus perform miracles, as well as many of the over 500 people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that there would be a need for even more tangible confirmations of God’s power. The NIV translates the verse as “Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” We need tangible confirmations today much more than people did back then because all of the eyewitnesses are dead. Of course, we could say that God murdering people with hurricanes, and making people blind, deaf, and dumb, are tangible confirmations, but not confirmations that any rational minded person would accept as evidence that God has good character.

Rhutchin, sooner or later you will realize that the main issue IS NOT the existence of God, but HIS CHARACTER. Everyone agrees that George Bush Jr. exists, but his existence does not prove anything at all about his character. No one would vote for a president merely because they knew that he exists. You would never recommend that people vote for a president because he would hurt them if they didn’t.

Your posts have become ridiculously easy to refute. Please be advised that as long I can keep the undecided crowd undecided, I win. I am happy with a Mexican standoff, but you most certainly aren't.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_flood

Instead of trying to find cataclysmic real life floods to explain these stories, some historians point out that early civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins such as the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris-Euphrates river basin of Mesopotamia (in present day Iraq). It is not unusual that such peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods to explain and cope with an integral part of their lives. To these ancient cultures, a flood that covered their known world would likely be considered local flooding by First World standards instead of literally the entire planet. Scholars point out that most cultures living in areas where flooding was less likely to occur DID NOT HAVE FLOOD MYTHS OF THEIR OWN [Johnny: Emphasis mine.]These observations, coupled with the human tendency to make stories more dramatic than events originally warranted, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying cataclysmatic floods evolved.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ml#implication

6. Implications of a Flood

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

References

Alley, R. B., D. A. Meese, C. A. Shuman, A. J. Gow, K.C. Taylor, P. M. Grootes, J. W. C. White, M. Ram, E. W. Waddington, P. A. Mayewski, & G. A. Zielinski, 1993. Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event. Nature 362: 527-529.

Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record - absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71.

Becker, B., Kromer, B. & Trimborn, P., 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353 (6345): 647-649.

Johnsen, S. J., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrap, C. U. Hammer, P. Iversen, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, & J. P. Steffensen, 1992. Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359: 311-313.

Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al., Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.

Johnny: I suggest that readers read items 7 and 8 as well. Those items provide a lot more additional evidence that the story of the global flood is a lie, or an innocent but inaccurate revelation.

The home page of the article is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. The table of contents is as follows:

1. Building the Ark
2. Gathering the Animals
3. Fitting the Animals Aboard
4. Caring for the Animals
5. The Flood Itself
6. Implications of a Flood
7. Producing the Geological Record
8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology
9. Species Distribution and Diversity
10. Historical Aspects
11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points
Acknowledgements

The article was written by Mark Issak. If you wish, you can contact him at eciton@earthlink.net.

rhutchin

OK. How do they matter?

The bias placed on logic and reason by total depravity is insurmountable. So, what else is there?

The bias placed on logic and reason by total depravity is insurmountable. If a person is to be saved, God must save them. What's your point?

The prior miracles attest to the power of Christ and the veracity of his servant Paul. Believe them or not. It's your choice. Would you believe Christ only if you personally see Him perform a miracle. Blessed are those who do not yet still believe.

What does character have to do with it? God is who He is. Regardless of His character, He is still the one before whom you must stand and give account of all that you have done. How does character change that situation?

Amaleq13

This is a false dichotomy since it is obvious one can quite rationally reject both as fanciful myths.

rhutchin

This site--

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

responds to Mark Isaak’s “Problems with a Global Flood” FAQ cited in your msg.

Let talkorigins duke it out with trueorigins.

rhutchin

The choice is to accept or reject God. If satan is real, rejection of God amounts to acceptance of satan regardless whether a person believes in satan. If satan is not real, then rejection of God is only rejection of God. A person can quite rationally reject both as fanciful myths and be wrong.

rhutchin

What's to explain? You can read the account as well as I can. Is there something in the account that you do not understand?

Johnny Skeptic

I already told you how. I said:

There is no credible evidence that it is totally depraved to reject favoritism, killing some of your most devout and faithful followers, unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, making people blind, deaf, and dumb, punishing people for sins that their grandparents committed, frequently distributing tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, while frequently withholding tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, and refusing to reveal yourself to some people who would accept you if they knew that you (supposedly) exist.

Since you have not proven that all humans are totally depraved, what is your point?

Not really. I quoted a number of Scriptures that say that first hand tangible evidence was what convinced some people, and Jesus provided it for them. We are right back to God frequently using favoritism. Favoritism is detestable, and it is sufficient grounds to reject any being. Surely you do not like humans who endorse favoritism, but of course, they won’t hurt you if you refuse to love them.

Are you saying that when you vote for a president, you do not consider his character?

Saddam Hussein is who he is, so what is your point?

If God endorsed lying, and demanded that you love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind, would you be able to do it? I do not see how lying is any worse than the many atrocities that God has committed against humanity. If God exists, at best, his behavior indicates that he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes there is. Regarding "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them", how can humans do anything that they want to if they all speak the same language?

Will you please tell us why God sent the wise men to see Herod, which resulted in the deaths of many innocent children?