Difficulty on Noah's Flood?

Originally posted by roigam
For me, I don't need to debate the flood anymore.

Did Noah's children ~ and their children and grandchildren - produce offspring through incest? How do you explain the racial diversity found in the world after the supposed flood? Oh, hang on, you "need to debate the flood", that's tight. No wonder.

Originally posted by FMF
Debates over - such things as - "whether the Noah flood was global or local" might require you to actually address whether the entire folk story is in the slightest bit credible, but your chosen approach does enable you to declare "Judged is judged". which has, of course, the added attraction of fitting on a bumper sticker nicely.

Your " ... entire folk story ..." fits on a bumper sticker also.

Put it next to your other bumper sticker - " your God figure ".

Originally posted by sonship
Your " ... entire folk story ..." fits on a bumper sticker also.

The burden of proof for your extraordinary claims about supernatural things falls upon you. And yet you have glibly declared yourself unwilling to debate it, so there you go. You're probably sincere, I'll grant you that.

Originally posted by sonship
Put it next to your other bumper sticker - " your God figure ".

I live in a world where people have all manner of contrasting God figures. If your strength of convictions has robbed you of the ability to realize that, or has made you presumptuous and egocentric about how your preferred God figure must be referred to differently, then that is - intellectually and spiritually - a real pity.

Originally posted by FMF
The burden of proof for your extraordinary claims about supernatural things falls upon you. And yet you have glibly declared yourself unwilling to debate it, so there you go. You're probably sincere, I'll grant you that.

I believe God judged the world that then was. The video I linked to showed the ocean rushing in over the boundary of the land in a horrendous deluge. I have seen other videos of devastating tsunami waves pushing debris across the face of the earth.

It is not hard for me to imagine an ancient deluge being used by God to judge sinful man to the extent that man had spread and populated the planet. My present belief is that the flood of Noah was local to the perspective of the extent of human dwelling.

i don't have need to defend that the waters of the Genesis Flood overran the continent of Antarctica. I have no need to debate from biology or geography that Genesis requires me to believe that the Noah Flood spread over North America.

If others believe so that is their belief. God knows the facts. And I trust my Father to have told us what we need to know. The question is to see WHAT He told us and how we should interpret those words for He spoke in human language.

I believe the extent of God's judgment only needed to extend to the areas with man and under sinful man's influence. Man's migration to Antarctica probably did not occur or call for God to judge people or penguins in Antarctica.

In Genesis 8:5 it says that the flood waters receded enough so that the "tops of the mountains became visible". This seems it must have some perspective to the sight of those ON the ark. To their perspective the mountain tops became visible.

Then in forty morpe days the receding waters retreated further so that a released dove could be sent to test for dry land (Genesis 8:9). The dove found no dry land to set its foot down. This does not call for me imagining that the dove flew around the globe of the planet. From the perspective of how far a dove could fly around, it found no place to stand on dry soil.

The former perspective of the condition of the receding water was from the viewpoint of Noah on the ark. The second perspective is from the viewpoint of a dove bird flying around.

Originally posted by FMF
I live in a world where people have all manner of contrasting God figures. If your strength of convictions has robbed you of the ability to realize that, or has made you presumptuous and egocentric about how your preferred God figure must be referred to differently, then that is - intellectually and spiritually - a real pity.

I live in a world where people have all manner of contrasting God figures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That only concludes to me that different opinions exist - some overlap and some complete constrast.

The existence of counterfeit money doesn't prove that no real money exists.


If your strength of convictions has robbed you of the ability to realize that, or has made you presumptuous and egocentric about how your preferred God figure must be referred to differently, then that is - intellectually and spiritually - a real pity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the "pity" is that men would hide behind plurality of beliefs to claim that as evidence God doesn't exist. I notice also a strong double standard going on with those who take this refuge.

There are different cultures and different countries. You don't decide to renounce citizenship of your country because all such designations must be unreal.

I don't think you use such a worry about the lack of universality to discard belief in other areas of your life except for what to do with God.

There are also lots of approaches to how one best play the game of chess - Attacking, Defensive, Positional. Do you stop playing chess because good chess players have different philosophies ?

Originally posted by sonship
That only concludes to me that different opinions exist - some overlap and some complete constrast.

So why does alluding to the fact that different people and societies have different God figures belong on a bumper sticker?

Originally posted by sonship
I think the "pity" is that men would hide behind plurality of beliefs to claim that as evidence God doesn't exist.

I haven't done this sonship.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't think you use such a worry about the lack of universality to discard belief in other areas of your life except for what to do with God.

I just find the case you make for the existence and revelation of your God figure unconvincing. It's as simple as that. The reasoning and evidence you use is lacking credibility. The fact you find it credible is not evidence of anything other than how your mind map is laid out.

Originally posted by sonship
There are also lots of approaches to how one best play the game of chess - Attacking, Defensive, Positional. Do you stop playing chess because good chess players have different philosophies ?

And what exactly is it you think this convoluted analogy is in reference to? Is this still because you don't like the specifically defined supernatural being, that you just so happen to believe in, being referred to as a "God figure"? Are you still chuntering on about that?

Originally posted by FMF
So why does alluding to the fact that different people and societies have different God figures belong on a bumper sticker?

Grill me a little about Noah's Flood if you wish.

If I write too much posters say I write long monologes. If I write smaller portions posters complain that these are bumper sticker phrases. So you really cannot please everybody.

Perhaps you saw the video. It is not hard for me to watch that and see that a monster deluge is possible.

AMAZING Gigantic landslide brings in Indian Ocean in Malaysia 1993

YouTube

But granted, if I had no such video i would still elect to believe the Bible. It was good enough for Jesus. So it must be true. I came to the Old Testament through confidence in the unquestionable integrity of Christ.

Jesus spoke of the end times as being as the days of Noah. He would not take a fictional account to serve as a sober warning for something actual.

Now, how we should understand the words of Genesis on that flood, that is up to discussion. RJHinds would not give you the same interpretation i might.

Either way - God's judgment and salvation are the major theme to be realized in that account. We should be happy God gave us such a graphic example of what is to come.

Originally posted by sonship
The video I linked to showed the ocean rushing in over the boundary of the land in a horrendous deluge. I have seen other videos of devastating tsunami waves pushing debris across the face of the earth. It is not hard for me to imagine an ancient deluge being used by God to judge sinful man to the extent that man had spread and populated the planet.

And why do you think that you personally finding it "not hard for [you] to imagine" something constitutes evidence of anything?

Originally posted by FMF
And what exactly is it you think this convoluted analogy is in reference to? Is this still because you don't like the specifically defined supernatural being, that you just so happen to believe in, being referred to as a "God figure"? Are you still chuntering on about that?

I haven't done this FMF.

Originally posted by FMF
And why do you think that you personally finding it "not hard for [you] to imagine" something constitutes evidence of anything?

I didn't say my personal [not hard to believe] constituted evidence. Does your disbelief constitute evidence for anything ?

And this reasoning of yours is kind of convoluted to me - talking about convoluted reasoning.

Maybe I need to repeat.

But granted, if I had no such video i would still elect to believe the Bible. It was good enough for Jesus. So it must be true. I came to the Old Testament through confidence in the unquestionable integrity of Christ.

Jesus spoke of the end times as being as the days of Noah. He would not take a fictional account to serve as a sober warning for something actual.

Now, how we should understand the words of Genesis on that flood, that is up to discussion. RJHinds would not give you the same interpretation i might.

Originally posted by sonship
And this reasoning of yours is kind of convoluted to me - talking about convoluted reasoning.

And how does this make your case? I am feeding back to you on your attempts to convince people like me that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and constitute reality as it pertains to me. Has your God figure given you nothing more than what you offer here to propagate your contention that He has revealed Himself to you?