Literal belief in the flood story
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
It wouldn't surprise me it the myth was based on a real flood somewhere.

My issue is with people believing the account in Genesis is literally true and then going full-fundy and explaining why it was good for God to drown those children; the ones he could have totally spared but chose not to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
04-04-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
I would sometimes get into trouble with my (ex) husband for blasphemy when I'd flip out because "God is scary. It's not the stuff in the Bible I DON'T understand that scares me, it's what I DO understand." The flood account was one of those things I would mention, along with the various genocides and sporadic isolated killing of people like Ananias/Sapphira, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
As a kid I don't think I gave the Noah story much thought. But I do remember that when I saw Walt Disney's Pinocchio and there was the whole swallowed by the whale scene, it made me rethink the Jonah and the Whale story. I knew the movie I had just seen was make believe so why would I think the Bible story was true? I still have a problem grasping how seemingly intelligent people take some of the Bible stories literally.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
Rationalization. Convincing yourself that yes Noah did take all the animals on a tiny boat, yes a snake can talk. I know I did it for long enough.

You lie to yourself long enough and the lie becomes true, also its comfortable believing in the same bullshit as every one around you, because as they say 1.5 billion people can be wrong about the same thing can they?

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
Actually, they say many more than that can be wrong about the same thing. They use Muslims and Catholics as examples, and follow that up with lumping everyone else into the "wrong" category. Why? because "obviously" if the way is straight and narrow, and if only few find it, then obviously only a few will be right with everyone else being wrong. So in much of Christianity, it's kind of a given that the "right" way won't be truly followed by very many.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 02:49 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
(04-04-2014 02:27 PM)Charis Wrote:  Actually, they say many more than that can be wrong about the same thing. They use Muslims and Catholics as examples, and follow that up with lumping everyone else into the "wrong" category. Why? because "obviously" if the way is straight and narrow, and if only few find it, then obviously only a few will be right with everyone else being wrong. So in much of Christianity, it's kind of a given that the "right" way won't be truly followed by very many.

True, but i was using the appeal to the masses fallacy that is often spouted in situations like this.

Paradoxically your given explanation is also used as often. the appeal to authority from revealed truth.

Arguing with a the theists at work has driven me up the wall recently, so i get these kind of claims allot.

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Blackhand293's post
04-04-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
To clarify, I wasn't saying "obviously" toward you, but was only echoing some Christians. I don't want to sound like I was saying that at you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
(04-04-2014 02:57 PM)Charis Wrote:  To clarify, I wasn't saying "obviously" toward you, but was only echoing some Christians. I don't want to sound like I was saying that at you.

I understand completely, I just wanted to clarify my point as I don't always type in the most accessible english, or even understandable english, and the theist thing was regarding the literal interpretation of the bible.

BTW, love your posts Charis. Big Grin

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Blackhand293's post
04-04-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
(04-04-2014 03:04 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 02:57 PM)Charis Wrote:  To clarify, I wasn't saying "obviously" toward you, but was only echoing some Christians. I don't want to sound like I was saying that at you.

I understand completely, I just wanted to clarify my point as I don't always type in the most accessible english, or even understandable english, and the theist thing was regarding the literal interpretation of the bible.

BTW, love your posts Charis. Big Grin
HeartHeartHeart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: Literal belief in the flood story
(04-04-2014 08:21 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  A while back, I got into this argument with someone on RRS. If you believe in a literal account of the flood story, the take home is that God willingly killed children because he wanted to, and there is no other possible conclusion.

So, to start with this, if we assume there exists a god that is powerful enough to create universes out of nothing, then it's certainly plausible that there exists a god who could summon a bunch of water out of nothing, leave it on earth a while, and then magic it all away. It's not that difficult to accept once we've made the initial assumption. That being said, there are a lot of other problems with the flood myth that don't jive with the really real world:
  • The mixing of fresh and salt water would have killed countless fish.
  • Most or all terrestrial plants would have died.
  • The herbivores wouldn't have had enough to eat when they came off the ark.
  • The carnivores would have quickly killed all the herbivores when they got off the ark, then starved when there was no food.
  • Every species on the planet would have had a genetic bottle neck 5,000 years ago.
So, if we assume God can magic up universes from nothing, and magic water up out of nothing and magic it away, then presumably he can magic up some solutions to those problems. So he uses magic to keep the fish alive. He uses magic to keep the plants alive or simply respawns a bunch of new ones later; it's all the same. He either magically sustains the carnivores and keeps them from reproducing while herbivore populations increase to where they could sustain the carnivores, or he holds them in suspended animation during this time. He also makes sure that none of the species get wiped out by a single disease until the species can become more genetically diverse.

Again, this isn't hard to accept in terms of feasibility if he's out there creating universes. We can certainly question why he'd go through such a convoluted plot to kill all the wicked people when a bunch of well-aimed lightning strikes would have done the job. We can question why he magiced all the evidence of the flood away and later based admittance criteria for heaven on belief. Still, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have done it.


The problem is: the children. The whole notion is God was mad at the wicked people, so he killed them and their kids to make things right. Now, there's no way that the children who were sufficiently young would have been wicked, so why did he kill them? Given all the hoops he had to jump through that I outline earlier, he could have totally saved them; he saved all the fish and terrestrial plants. Also rock formations. He took the time to save fragile geological rock formations, but not the kids. The take home message here is God wanted to kill the children; he had other options. Literally, according to the apologetics, an infinite number of other options.


Now, I've heard Christians respond that the other kids were going to grow up wicked, so that's why he killed them. Two problems:

1) Couldn't Noah have raised them in a moral manner while God fed them manna from heaven, or something?

2) Doesn't this completely violate the concept of free will? Whoops! There goes most of your contemporary apologetics for the problem of evil and the reason for the flood in the first place!


This myth is stupidly contrived and terrible. When people accept it as true, they make some of the most creepy, and morally bankrupt excuses for God I have ever heard.
Of course it makes sense that God would do all this and still not want to kill the children. Here's why:

a) God works in mysterious ways.
b) Our limited human minds can't understand God's infinite one.

I can't believe you missed those. Drinking Beverage

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, excellent post and well thought out. While not as bad as killing children, I have a problem with God killing all the other animals too.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: