Noah's Ark

[moanareina]

Hah, I've thought about that for quite some time, like the AE's Mark from Austin Stone Church:

 

 

Wow, that's been pretty entertaining and I truly admire the patience those guys have.

[Neverlandrut]

¹And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis Chapter 6

This is the reason god decided to destroy man. Doesn't it strike you as odd that god didn't really care about men's wickedness until AFTER god's sons came down and started having sex with women? It almost seems like god was trying to cover up the wickedness of his own sons and that humans (and animals, by default) just got caught in the crossfire.

You really should learn to read the scriptures in context, TinPony.

IH,

 

Also notice that it "repented" god that he had created man. This means he regretted making man, which means he did something that he thought was a good idea and later realized it wasn't. This means that god is not all knowing, because if he was, the sins of man would have been no surprise. If he is all knowing and powerful, then the wickedness of man must have been his plan all along, because he made everything knowing how it would turn out, with the power to make it otherwise, choosing not to. There is no way out of it, as I've said in the past, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then absolutely everything (good, bad, holiness, evil) is gods direct plan and doing. There is no way humans can be rightly judged, rewarded, or punished since all the responsibility rests on god. Any "judgement" god would levy would be totally arbitrary, which would be unjust by definition.

[sdelsolray]

 

Better than your idea of a god who drowned billions of living creatures?  Yes.  Your god is a monster IH.

 

I've said it to all the christians here and I'll say it again.  If you excuse all the atrocities that this character did and continue to indoctrinate children into his religion...

 

YOU ARE NOT A MORAL PERSON.

 

You blame God for evil.

 

So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

I don't blame God.

 

You have poor reading comprehension.  Quite poor.

 

Roz did not "blame God for evil" (your words).  He simply puts blame on this particular god for his actions which Roz believes are evil.  Accordingly, you statement should be modified to the following:

 

"You blame God for the Flood, you believe that action was evil and you believe God is responsible for that evil."

 

Your attempt at creating a strawman fallacy fails.

 

Of course, then you double down with another strawman, "So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?".  Yes, you guess, and merely assert, and blunder, and lie.

 

 

 

Lurkers are watching, Ironhorse.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

Better than your idea of a god who drowned billions of living creatures? Yes. Your god is a monster IH.

 

I've said it to all the christians here and I'll say it again. If you excuse all the atrocities that this character did and continue to indoctrinate children into his religion...

 

YOU ARE NOT A MORAL PERSON.

You blame God for evil.

 

So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

I don't blame God.

You have poor reading comprehension. Quite poor.

 

Roz did not "blame God for evil" (your words). He simply puts blame on this particular god for his actions which Roz believes are evil. Accordingly, you statement should be modified to the following:

 

"You blame God for the Flood, you believe that action was evil and you believe God is responsible for that evil."

 

Lurkers are watching, Ironhorse.

Oh, I'll say it. If an omniscient/omnipotent god exists, then he is responsible for evil, period. It would be illogical for such a god not be responsible for evil.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

Better than your idea of a god who drowned billions of living creatures? Yes. Your god is a monster IH.

 

I've said it to all the christians here and I'll say it again. If you excuse all the atrocities that this character did and continue to indoctrinate children into his religion...

 

YOU ARE NOT A MORAL PERSON.

You blame God for evil.

 

So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

I don't blame God.

You have poor reading comprehension. Quite poor.

 

Roz did not "blame God for evil" (your words). He simply puts blame on this particular god for his actions which Roz believes are evil. Accordingly, you statement should be modified to the following:

 

"You blame God for the Flood, you believe that action was evil and you believe God is responsible for that evil."

 

Lurkers are watching, Ironhorse.

Oh, I'll say it. If an omniscient/omnipotent god exists, then he is responsible for evil, period. It would be illogical for such a god not be responsible for evil.

 

I agree, at least according to my morals and senses of correctness and justice.  Of course, there can be more than one moral agent responsible for chosen actions.  Respondeat Superior can be applied to certain fact patterns.  Conversely, many events causing suffering are not evil, particularly if no moral agent caused the event which caused the suffering.  If no god exists, then it cannot be blamed for evil actions.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

Better than your idea of a god who drowned billions of living creatures? Yes. Your god is a monster IH.

 

I've said it to all the christians here and I'll say it again. If you excuse all the atrocities that this character did and continue to indoctrinate children into his religion...

 

YOU ARE NOT A MORAL PERSON.

You blame God for evil.

 

So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

I don't blame God.

You have poor reading comprehension. Quite poor.

 

Roz did not "blame God for evil" (your words). He simply puts blame on this particular god for his actions which Roz believes are evil. Accordingly, you statement should be modified to the following:

 

"You blame God for the Flood, you believe that action was evil and you believe God is responsible for that evil."

 

Lurkers are watching, Ironhorse.

Oh, I'll say it. If an omniscient/omnipotent god exists, then he is responsible for evil, period. It would be illogical for such a god not be responsible for evil.

I agree, at least according to my morals and senses of correctness and justice. Of course, there can be more than one moral agent responsible for chosen actions. Respondeat Superior can be applied to certain fact patterns. Conversely, many events causing suffering are not evil, particularly if no moral agent caused the event which caused the suffering. If no god exists, then it cannot be blamed for evil actions.

Which amounts to quibbles over the definition of evil. My point is that Christians make the claim that objective evil exists and that their omniscient/omnipotent god is not responsible. This is a logical contradiction. Taking evil out of the picture; say there is no objective evil, omnipotence is logically incoherent in and of itself. The famous question which demonstrates this is "Can God build a mountain so big that he cannot move it?" Obviously either answer renders him less than all powerful. Omnipotence will always run into logical contradictions when applied. Omnipotence in one being will always reduce to a task that that being both can and cannot do. Since it leads to logical contradictions, it cannot be rationally accepted as true. Omniscience, in itself, may or may not be incoherent. That is harder to demonstrate. But when you apply omniscience and omnipotence to the bible god, you get nothing but contradictions.

[midniterider]

 

 

I'm glad Dusty is not God.

 

"blink"

My breakfast is ready and done the moment I awaken.

 

"blink"

My garden is already cultivated and watered.

 

"blink"

My house is all cleaned and dishes washed.

 

"blink"

I go fishing and every time I cast, I catch the big one.

I curse Dusty and BAM!!!...I'm outta here 

 

 

Concerning Noah:

He warned the people for 120 years.

 

 

God floods the earth, killing everyone.

Dusty makes youtube videos.

 

I'm also glad Dusty is not God, the destroyer.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

Better than your idea of a god who drowned billions of living creatures? Yes. Your god is a monster IH.

 

I've said it to all the christians here and I'll say it again. If you excuse all the atrocities that this character did and continue to indoctrinate children into his religion...

 

YOU ARE NOT A MORAL PERSON.

You blame God for evil.

 

So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

I don't blame God.

You have poor reading comprehension. Quite poor.

 

Roz did not "blame God for evil" (your words). He simply puts blame on this particular god for his actions which Roz believes are evil. Accordingly, you statement should be modified to the following:

 

"You blame God for the Flood, you believe that action was evil and you believe God is responsible for that evil."

 

Lurkers are watching, Ironhorse.

Oh, I'll say it. If an omniscient/omnipotent god exists, then he is responsible for evil, period. It would be illogical for such a god not be responsible for evil.

I agree, at least according to my morals and senses of correctness and justice. Of course, there can be more than one moral agent responsible for chosen actions. Respondeat Superior can be applied to certain fact patterns. Conversely, many events causing suffering are not evil, particularly if no moral agent caused the event which caused the suffering. If no god exists, then it cannot be blamed for evil actions.

Which amounts to quibbles over the definition of evil. My point is that Christians make the claim that objective evil exists and that their omniscient/omnipotent god is not responsible. This is a logical contradiction. Taking evil out of the picture; say there is no objective evil, omnipotence is logically incoherent in and of itself. The famous question which demonstrates this is "Can God build a mountain so big that he cannot move it?" Obviously either answer renders him less than all powerful. Omnipotence will always run into logical contradictions when applied. Omnipotence in one being will always reduce to a task that that being both can and cannot do. Since it leads to logical contradictions, it cannot be rationally accepted as true. Omniscience, in itself, may or may not be incoherent. That is harder to demonstrate. But when you apply omniscience and omnipotence to the bible god, you get nothing but contradictions.

 

Well, a workable definition of "evil" is a prerequisite.  Please define the term.

 

As to you omni- argument, and there are many of them, perhaps a god exists without any of the "omnis", or one exists that has 99% of each "omni" you wish to discuss.  I'll use my own existence as evidence.  I am partially potent, I cause some events to happen to my will, but not others because I am impotent for those.  I am partially benevolent, I occasionally do good things but occasionally do not-so-good things.  I am partially aware of things, including future events, but I am unaware of much.  I am present in the space in which I exist, but I do not exist in other places.  

 

All of this would depend on your definition of "god", or an imported definition from some religion, such as Christianity.  Trouble is, no Christian I have ever witnessed has had a comprehensive definition of god.

[Guest afireinside]

I'm going to just rudely jump in here. These Nephilim were apparently the cause of this right? Where are they today? If it worked back in Noah's day why aren't they back seducing us to have these hybrid children of Satan? They must have had salami penises and vibrating vaginas to seduce all those people with the exception of frigid old Noah who only ever got wood when it was for the ark. The bible didn't say they raped humans so it was obviously consensual, unbridled lust that led to these pregnancies. Damn I want a Nephilim right now, they must have been AMAZING!!!

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Better than your idea of a god who drowned billions of living creatures? Yes. Your god is a monster IH.

 

I've said it to all the christians here and I'll say it again. If you excuse all the atrocities that this character did and continue to indoctrinate children into his religion...

 

YOU ARE NOT A MORAL PERSON.

You blame God for evil.

 

So, I guess you blame God for evil committed by humans?

 

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

I don't blame God.

You have poor reading comprehension. Quite poor.

 

Roz did not "blame God for evil" (your words). He simply puts blame on this particular god for his actions which Roz believes are evil. Accordingly, you statement should be modified to the following:

 

"You blame God for the Flood, you believe that action was evil and you believe God is responsible for that evil."

 

Lurkers are watching, Ironhorse.

Oh, I'll say it. If an omniscient/omnipotent god exists, then he is responsible for evil, period. It would be illogical for such a god not be responsible for evil.

I agree, at least according to my morals and senses of correctness and justice. Of course, there can be more than one moral agent responsible for chosen actions. Respondeat Superior can be applied to certain fact patterns. Conversely, many events causing suffering are not evil, particularly if no moral agent caused the event which caused the suffering. If no god exists, then it cannot be blamed for evil actions.

Which amounts to quibbles over the definition of evil. My point is that Christians make the claim that objective evil exists and that their omniscient/omnipotent god is not responsible. This is a logical contradiction. Taking evil out of the picture; say there is no objective evil, omnipotence is logically incoherent in and of itself. The famous question which demonstrates this is "Can God build a mountain so big that he cannot move it?" Obviously either answer renders him less than all powerful. Omnipotence will always run into logical contradictions when applied. Omnipotence in one being will always reduce to a task that that being both can and cannot do. Since it leads to logical contradictions, it cannot be rationally accepted as true. Omniscience, in itself, may or may not be incoherent. That is harder to demonstrate. But when you apply omniscience and omnipotence to the bible god, you get nothing but contradictions.

Well, a workable definition of "evil" is a prerequisite. Please define the term.

 

As to you omni- argument, and there are many of them, perhaps a god exists without any of the "omnis", or one exists that has 99% of each "omni" you wish to discuss. I'll use my own existence as evidence. I am partially potent, I cause some events to happen to my will, but not others because I am impotent for those. I am partially benevolent, I occasionally do good things but occasionally do not-so-good things. I am partially aware of things, including future events, but I am unaware of much. I am present in the space in which I exist, but I do not exist in other places.

 

All of this would depend on your definition of "god", or an imported definition from some religion, such as Christianity. Trouble is, no Christian I have ever witnessed has had a comprehensive definition of god.

No, a workable definition is not a pre-requisit for an omnipotent/omniscient being to be responsible for it. The point is, evil aside, that if an omnipotent/omniscient being exists then every thing that exists (defined or not) comes from it, and it is thus, by definition, responsible for everything, no matter how we view it or chose to define it.

 

To your second point, it is logically possible that a "god" could exist that is not ALL-knowing/powerful, maybe 99.99%, the most powerful being there is, sure. But most monotheists would not accept the idea that their god is anything less than all. That would remove the logical contradiction, though. Belief in any known concept of god is unfounded and amounts to nothing but conjecture. We could speculate all day about what a god, if one existed, could be like. But all our speculations would be shots in the dark. That is the true problem with theism, that god is either undefined/inadequately defined/infinitely redefinable. The real problem is not that we don't have a working definition of evil, but that we don't have a working definition of god. The bottom line is that there is no evidence that necessitates the existence of a divine being.

[Neverlandrut]

Sdelsolray,

 

Please don't misunderstand my point about evil. If we agree that evil exists (by whatever definition), then an omniscient/omnipotent being must, by definition, be responsible for it. I'm not evading defining evil. My definition, if you want it, would be anything (natural or man induced) that results in human harm. Admittedly, that's an extremely broad definition, and I leave it completely open to amendment. But again, the definition of evil was not my point, but the fact that god, as traditionally defined, must be responsible for it. That's what it means to be All-powerful/knowing, that the force and knowledge of all things are in said being's possession. Such a god would, necessarily, be responsible for everything in existence (beautiful, good, bad, ugly, harmful, useless, etc., etc.) And no Christian wants to accept the idea that god is responsible for sin, but he must be if he is "omni." Apologists try to worm out of it all the time, but they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can have a really really really powerful and knowledgable god that is not responsible for evil, but not an ALL powerful/knowing god. Problem is the bible describes god in ALL terms. "Nothing is impossible with God," etc, etc.

[Androo]

I find it interesting that one christian argument I've heard for the validity of the flood story in the bible is the fact that there are many other flood stories in many other cultures. But they don't take into account that all the stories are so different! It would be like saying that the fact that other religions arose in other cultures points to the truth of christianity.

[skepticalme]

 

Are y'all Christians so cowardly and so fearful of hell that y'all would worship a baby-drowning god just to save your own ass?

 

What if that same god ordered genocide and threatened to make parents eat their own children? Would you still worship him and call him 'good' just because you're afraid of what he'll do to YOU?

 

And knowing damn well that ALL of this is spelled out in excruciating detail in your own goddamn bible... at what point are y'all LYING when you call this supposed god "good"?

 

 

Here's the question again for you:

 

What are your thoughts on the evil men commit?

 

Let's say Hitler is the most evil man who's ever existed.  Doubt you'd find much argument.  If the stories are true, your god has killed far more than him.  Hitler only wanted to exterminate a single race, but your god succeded in exterminating all races minus a single family.  Your god was willing to use unyielding divine force to kill them, why didn't he apply that same power to save them?  A benevolent god would have used all there infinite power to convert and save as many as they could from self destruction instead of implomenting that destruction themselves.  If the flood had happened and Hitler had watched, he would say,"Damn that's pretty brutal".

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

Are y'all Christians so cowardly and so fearful of hell that y'all would worship a baby-drowning god just to save your own ass?

 

What if that same god ordered genocide and threatened to make parents eat their own children? Would you still worship him and call him 'good' just because you're afraid of what he'll do to YOU?

 

And knowing damn well that ALL of this is spelled out in excruciating detail in your own goddamn bible... at what point are y'all LYING when you call this supposed god "good"?

 

Here's the question again for you:

 

What are your thoughts on the evil men commit?

Way to ignore the answers to your question, then continue to assert your question when you get asked one you don't want to answer. Quit fucking evading! I'll answer your question:

 

Yes, men commit evil acts! We all know this, nothing new. We are aware of Hitler, Stallin, the murderers in our home towns, etc. But what are your thoughts on the evil mass genocided and infanticide your god committed? We know men can be evil. We agree with that. But can you judge your god's actions by the same standard and admit that his genocidal and infanticidal commands in the bible are also evil?

[Thackerie]

... I don't blame God.

 

I take responsibility for all the wrong and evil I have done in my life.

 

So you're no longer a Christian, then?

 

Christians have a crappy belief that Jesus already took responsibility for their wrongs and evil.

 

“I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me" - Christopher Hitchens.

[Thackerie]

I'm going to just rudely jump in here. These Nephilim were apparently the cause of this right? Where are they today? If it worked back in Noah's day why aren't they back seducing us to have these hybrid children of Satan? They must have had salami penises and vibrating vaginas to seduce all those people with the exception of frigid old Noah who only ever got wood when it was for the ark. The bible didn't say they raped humans so it was obviously consensual, unbridled lust that led to these pregnancies. Damn I want a Nephilim right now, they must have been AMAZING!!!

 

 

Agree!