LP675

Nonsense.

The point was Sven made a claim that was false. I tried (successfully I think) to refute him. I am new here but I thought we were in the 'Biblical Criticism & History' channel, not the 'creation evolution channel'(meaning scientific evidences of the flood arn't really appropriate). That is how it works isnt it?

I agree

LP675

Yeah Spin I am just about to post my reply to that one (you know where!), get stuck into it for me...

Jack the Bodiless

Are you seriously arguing that "most Christians" believe the Flood actually happened?

Stephen T-B

Judaism, as I understand it, was invented in Judaea around 400 BC (but that figure might be completely wrong; I’m writing this without my reference book, It Ain’t Necessarily So by John McCarthy, one of the Beirut hostages, to hand) as a way of defining a disparate bunch of tribes inhabiting the territory claimed by the Judaean kings and giving them a sense of national identity.
Having their own highly-specific laws and highly-specific god and attaching to it the *stories now included in the OT was part of that needful process.
What promoted Yahweh into an international deity was the invention of Christianity which, as fate would have it, was taken up by the Romans who spread it across their empire, with the result that it became the state religion of the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch and British who proceeded to impose it on a very large part of the Globe.

*The account of the Flood was told and re-told, and eventually was written down by people with a very limited knowledge of the World. They thought it was flat, that it consisted of their own and neighbouring lands and that immediately above it was the Firmament or Heaven, like a solid dome, and above that, water. It was therefore reasonable to think that if portals in Heaven were opened, the water would pour through until all the world was well and truly drowned.
Their knowledge of the Animal Kingdom was as limited as their knowledge of the Earth, and it was therefore entirely reasonable to think that all the representatives of it could be gathered together and put on a boat.

Today we know enough to know that the story of the Flood is just that: a story.
To think it is a historical fact denotes the power of wishful thinking to cause a fusion between the part of the brain which identifies “reality” with the part which tells us that something is impossible.

LP675

Ive never heard that 'it aint nessesarily so' song, it sounds hilarious

Sven

Perhaps you misunderstood my premise. I meant that most Christians think that their God is omnibenevolent. My premise was not their definition of "omnibenevolent", only that they describe their god that way. Let me try it this way:

I meant: (God is omnibenevolent) as accepted by most Christians
You interpreted this as: God is (omnibenvolent as accepted by most Christians)

That "omnibenevolent" (obvious meaning) is obviously incompatible with Hell is another point. My point was to show that omnibenevolence as defined by the obvious meaning of the word is incompatible with the flood, not the weird definition Christians are forced to used when they realize that the obvious definition doesn't make sense for their God. You can dance around this point as long as you want, but this won't change the fact that the omnibenevolence you talk about has nothing to do with the obvious meaning of the word.

Yes, you're right. "Assert" is exactly the right word here. Apart from the three words "preacher of righteousness" which can be interpreted very broad, you have exactly zero evidence that Noah preached to all people in the world. Thus there is also zero evidence that God tried to influence them.

Edited to add: I looked it up. It was Peter who called Noah "preacher of righteousness", it's not even in Genesis itself! And for what Peter wrote, see my commentary for Paul.

And you won't say this? Why? Because it would go against your preconceived view of your God?

Evidence for this assertion? If it's Paul, see below.

Yes, something similar to this.

Hey, you have refuted the omnibenevolence (obvious meaning again) of you God again! If moral behaviour etc. isn't sufficient to "avoid eternal punishment", you're God obviously isn't benevolent at all!

Since you have no evidence of any other laws that he gave to mankind earlier, I don't see any difference.

Paul could write anything he wanted - there's exactly zero evidence to substantiate his claim.

Let's skip this point. We obviously talk past each other.

Edited to add: I see that you still haven't provided an answer to (6). And that you said nothing on my points to your answer to (5) - why destruction by a flood would be the "catastrophe of choice" of an omnipotent deity.

BTW, you remind me of Jason Gastrich, who also likes to claim victory while loosing the debate miserably.

Postcard73

First, welcome to the IIDB. Although this is not the E/C forum, it is a forum designed to discuss stories that appear in the Bible. As such, scientific evidence establishing the validity of the global flood story is relevant to this discussion and can be posted here.

Sorry for the intrusion- carry on!

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

Doctor X

. . . and we still wait for the Evidence that supports any one of the Flood Myths.

Waiting. . . .

Waiting. . . .

--J.D.

Ellis14

You disappoint me, Doctor X. Why ask for what God has provided by revelation! Has the EAC gotten to you as well?!

Doctor X

Shhhhhhh!!!!! OfCOURSE it does not exist . . . nothing to see here . . . move on. . . .

--J.D.