• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

prophecy....

If the Flood was effective as a Divine Deterrence Plan, why is the rest of OT filled with prophets shrieking that the people of the book have lost their way, turned away from God, and deserve their fate as a conquered and oppressed people? Further, if God could be dismayed by his creations and then decide to drown them (making him, incidentally, the #1 abortionist of all time & space)...well, didn't he have knowledge of the future?

People who say there is no God aren't gonna be deterred.

I don't know why you insist that the supposed purpose of The Flood was absolute deterrence. It was to show that God has the willingness and ability to punish sin.

God didn't tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit with the presumption that they would necessarily be deterred simply by the fact of having been warned. He didn't give us the 10 Commandments as if we had no other choice but to obey.
 
To believe anything you just said, you must believe in a deity who insists on love and forgiveness, but who kills all of earth's children to teach a point about his judgment. Fuck that. It's an unworthy tale, suitable for an earlier, ignorant time. We have now seen, in living memory, what genocide looks like. And let's not leave it at children -- all people except for a family of zealots and their zoo were considered to be justifiably drowned. Tots, teens, adults, the elderly -- people, like all people, neither paragons nor fiends for the most part, muddling through life. (Also, let's have a thought for the dumb beasts, who never thought of idolatry or any of the commandments. Somehow, God didn't have it in for the fishies.) Yet somehow, in the insistence of your reading of the narrative, they had to be horribly killed so that God's might and judgment would be demonstrated. It's just a tale with many ancient antecedents, but it makes for wretched morality. It has man's grubby thumb prints all over it. And it throws the supposed overarching Biblical theme of forgiveness on to the trash heap.
 
If the Flood was effective as a Divine Deterrence Plan, why is the rest of OT filled with prophets shrieking that the people of the book have lost their way, turned away from God, and deserve their fate as a conquered and oppressed people? Further, if God could be dismayed by his creations and then decide to drown them (making him, incidentally, the #1 abortionist of all time & space)...well, didn't he have knowledge of the future?

People who say there is no God aren't gonna be deterred.

I don't know why you insist that the supposed purpose of The Flood was absolute deterrence. It was to show that God has the willingness and ability to punish sin.

God didn't tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit with the presumption that they would necessarily be deterred simply by the fact of having been warned. He didn't give us the 10 Commandments as if we had no other choice but to obey.

This is nonsense.

A loving parent does not curse his children and all their descendants with disease and death.
A loving parent does not visit punishment on those yet to be born, who couldn't possibly have committed any crimes.
A loving parent does not kill all his children in a fit of genocidal rage, and then repent while basking in the odor of burning flesh.
A loving parent does not have his innocent clone-child tortured and offered to himself as a human sacrifice just so he can bring himself to forgive his other children.
A loving parent does not burn his children in hell.


You won't respond to anything I said because you know I am right.
 
It is really depressing to hear someone repeating nonsense like this, in the 21st century when most people in the western world have access to a high school education and the internet. Really fucking depressing.

A discussion is a discussion , regardless of how odd you find it. To avoid being depressed, best avoid those "sensitive" to you discussions. ;)

Anyway, its been busy at this end , may not have time to get into your post this very moment , but all the best .


Did you really not know how mountains are formed? Or that the Earth's crust floats on a molten core, and this crust has been in motion since the planet was formed?
 
atrib said:
You won't respond to anything I said because you know I am right.

I won't respond because it's a waste of breath attempting civil discourse with someone who says "you know I'm right". No matter what I say you'll just keep telling yourself that... Lion IRC secretly agrees with me but he just won't admit it.

#High-5
#Checkmate Lion IRC
 
Did you really not know how mountains are formed? Or that the Earth's crust floats on a molten core, and this crust has been in motion since the planet was formed?
you're asking him to consider more than two facts at the same time.
Creationists are opposed to holistic analysis. They're much more successful as long as they can limit the conversation to a few bullet statements and a couple of facts, and ignore the implications of consilience.

Sea creatures sink to the bottom on death.
Sea creature fossils are found on mountain tops.
Therefore, the tops of mountains must have been the ocean bottoms at one time.
The Bible does not say that the mountains moved, but it does say that the waters moved, therefore it's evidence of moving water.

Of course, geology says the mountains moved, but that's not going to lead to a 'bible is true' conclusion.
And the bible says that the Earth is flat, but that must be ignored as well, as it doesn't lead to a 'bible is true' conclusion unless you're going to credit the Flat Earther's as having the better idea.
 
Oh pahleeese!
The bible does NOT say the earth is flat.
 
atrib said:
You won't respond to anything I said because you know I am right.

I won't respond because it's a waste of breath attempting civil discourse with someone who says "you know I'm right". No matter what I say you'll just keep telling yourself that... Lion IRC secretly agrees with me but he just won't admit it.

#High-5
#Checkmate Lion IRC

Lion IRC - Exit stage left. As predicted.
 
The Flat-Earth Bible. The writers of the Bible were not very interested in discussing cosmology, as is evident from their rather scattered allusions. But the author(s) of 1 Enoch were. That book is a Hellenistic-era one that did not make the canonical cut. It describes the sky as being an inverted bowl overhead, and the Sun, Moon and stars as moving on its inner surface. When they set, they travel along the outer edge of the bowl to where they will rise. There is a jail for stars that dawdle.

It is evident that 1 Enoch clarifies the cosmological allusions of the canonical books.
 
Oh pahleeese!
The bible does NOT say the earth is flat.

It strongly implies it.

But frankly, who cares? It says donkeys and snakes talk, so it's hardly a guide to reality. Fiction can be fun, but it's crazy to take it seriously.
Implies?
God created the Earth by spreading it across the Waters Below, a big flat mud pie.
Every description of the Earth is of a Flat one.
 
"The four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12, Revelations 7:1). "Longer than the earth" (Job 11:9). "The ends of the earth" (Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19).

In Job 38:4-6, the earth is described as having foundations that it is fastened to, its measurements are taken by "lines", and it has a corner stone.

In Daniel 4:11 a tall tree is described as visible "to the end of all the earth".

In Matthew 4:8 "all the kingdoms of the world" are described as visible from a tall mountain.

If Lion IRC was relying on the Bible not very explicitly stating "the earth is flat" to make his point, well, that trick doesn't work.
 
In Daniel 4:11 a tall tree is described as visible "to the end of all the earth".
Well, that reference was a dream. Or a vision. Still, it is another place where the Earth is described as flat.

Also, the Sun gets the night off. Has a little house it sleeps in until dawn. Not possible on a sphere.

Lion IRC was relying on the Bible not very explicitly stating "the earth is flat" to make his point, well, that trick doesn't work.
Well, as predicted, it's something he doesn't want to deal with, so he won't. Insidting it is not true works for him because he values the idea of the books more than he values the actual contents.
 
"The four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12, Revelations 7:1). "Longer than the earth" (Job 11:9). "The ends of the earth" (Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19).

I've got two words for you.
mercator projection

In Job 38:4-6, the earth is described as having foundations that it is fastened to, its measurements are taken by "lines", and it has a corner stone.

:words:

I can do that too.
Job 26:7: He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Empty space? Doesn't science validate that the universe is mostly empty?
The earth hanging on nothing. Sounds like gravity to me.
Pretty good guess work physics for Bronze Age peasants

In Daniel 4:11 a tall tree is described as visible "to the end of all the earth".

Yeah and there's a morning TV show in .au called Sunrise
That's a lie. The Sun doesn't rise.

In Matthew 4:8 "all the kingdoms of the world" are described as visible from a tall mountain.

What's your point? satan says those are all the kingdoms of the world.
All this I will give You,” he said.
Why should Jesus or anyone believe satan?
It's a mirage and a lie because those kingdoms aren't satan's to give.


If Lion IRC was relying on the Bible not very explicitly stating "the earth is flat" to make his point, well, that trick doesn't work.

The bible explicitly says orb/sphere
Jesus says when He returns some will be sleeping and others would be working in the field. Simultaneous Day/Night. Revolving earth. Luke 17:34
 
:words:

I can do that too.
Job 26:7: He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Empty space? Doesn't science validate that the universe is mostly empty?
The earth hanging on nothing. Sounds like gravity to me.
Pretty good guess work physics for Bronze Age peasants


Job 26:7 has also been cited as proof that the writer of this book knew that the earth was a sphere: “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” An NAB footnote at this verse says, “The North: used here as a synonym for the firmament, cf. Is. 14:13,” (emphasis inserted). Thus, we read, “He stretches out the dome (firmament) over the empty space.” In other words, the dome was unsupported in the middle. The reference in Isaiah 14:13 says, “You (King of Babylon) were determined to climb up to heaven and place your throne above the highest stars (see the graphics). You thought you would sit like a king on that mountain in the north where the gods assemble.” The “north” was indeed used as a synonym for the heavens or firmament, so the passage was actually speaking of a “mountain in the heavens where the gods assemble.”

“He… hangeth the earth upon nothing” simply expressed a Hebrew belief that the flat earth, although supported by pillars, did not rest on the back of Atlas or a turtle or an elephant, as their pagan neighbors believed. In this Job was right but not because he was inspired; otherwise, he wouldnʼt have said in the same context, “The pillars of the heavens tremble (see the graphics [in the New American Bible]) and are stunned at his thunderous rebuke,” (26:11). He thought the thunder was Godʼs voice!
From here: https://etb-cosmology.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-hebrew-conception-of-universe.html

Also see: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

"Words" matter if you want to know what the writers had in mind. Which is better than inserting whatever you want to into their minds, as 'Biblical Christians' apparently prefer to do.

Hebrew cosmology was probably borrowed from the Babylonians.

hebrewcosmo.jpg


The bible explicitly says orb/sphere
Jesus says when He returns some will be sleeping and others would be working in the field. Simultaneous Day/Night. Revolving earth. Luke 17:34
Luke 17:34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.
35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.
37 “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”


"On that day" + "on that night" = an explicit statement of a spherical and revolving earth? Nope.

My point is this: The Bible is exactly what to expect the ignorant tribal peoples of that time and place to have written. To expect more is nuts.
 
Well, that reference was a dream. Or a vision. Still, it is another place where the Earth is described as flat.
I think it's the description that matters because, even if any of my references were dreams or poems, they draw on a "worldview". Even in their metaphors, writers and poets must reference their culture's view of how reality is.
Well, as predicted, it's something he doesn't want to deal with, so he won't. Insidting it is not true works for him because he values the idea of the books more than he values the actual contents.
His loss. His revered book has some truths in it, just not scientific ones or many (if any) historical ones. I wouldn't mind finding a brief retelling of "myths of the Bible", along the lines of what Edith Hamilton, et al, did for Greek myths. It's unfortunate how fundies make the Bible seem absurd.
 
Even in their metaphors, writers and poets must reference their culture's view of how reality is.
Oh, yeah, I wasn't trying to dismiss that example.

My claim was that the Bible always describes the Earth in terms of a flat Earth. The various defenses of 'dream, metaphor or poetic language' don't change that.
Plus, metaphors compare similar things. So if the Flat Earth is a metaphor, it's still saying that Earth is like a flat surface.
Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

The bible explicitly says orb/sphere
Jesus says when He returns some will be sleeping and others would be working in the field. Simultaneous Day/Night. Revolving earth. Luke 17:34
So, Lion doesn't know what 'explicitly' means...
 
Personally, I'd like to return to the subject of how often Biblegod resorts to murder to assert his holiness. What a pathetic picture of a deity!!
The Israelites bitch about manna? Throw poisonous snakes on 'em.
They challenge Moses and Aaron as their leaders? Take the rebels and their wives and children and swallow them up in the earth, then incinerate 250 more men with holy fire because they were lighting incense for the rebels.
David has a census made? Shit, kill 70,000 people over it, because who knows why.
Uzzah touches the magic Ark to keep it from falling? Kill the little buttinsky.
Give 'your people' a list of tribes to be completely exterminated (Deut 20) except for female captives who are old enough to be raped (Deut 21... or...er... old enough to be forced into concubinage...no, let's stick with rape.)
Obviously (if your mind works reasonably) this is just an expression of cultural animus. But again, what a pathetic god story. He supposedly can blast words into stone and put rainbows in the sky -- but when there are tribes who don't worship him, the thing to do is to have them murdered.
I'm willing to give the believers a pass on all this -- there is a level of abstraction in reading a Bible tale -- it must play like a gilded story book -- there is the default of 'God is love' that they can't imagine questioning. Still, I wonder that they can't wonder how genocide can be a divine order given to 'holy' people...and given so often!! How can your love god have so much justified genocide in 'his' book? Do you really read the Book of Joshua and imagine you're reading a true account of God ordering extermination? Can you picture grown men hacking babies and children and the sick and elderly (and their livestock) to death with swords, and still somehow imagine that God loves all his creations..... and that anyone who could put an entire people to the sword would be totally morally debauched? It seems to me that if you can truly make peace with the notion of divinely justified genocide, ordered over and over 'in person', by a god, then there's a level of irrationality at work that defies analysis, discussion, rapprochement.
 
To be fair to God, many of the groups targeted for genocide and murder weren't even white, so it's not like it was all that big a deal.
 
Back
Top Bottom