Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_Drifting]

But Nipper,

You said "People reap what they sow" so how is an abused child reaping what they sowed?

[_subgenius]

But Nipper,

You said "People reap what they sow" so how is an abused child reaping what they sowed?

Why would you assume that they are not reaping what they sow?

[_SteelHead]

But Nipper,

You said "People reap what they sow" so how is an abused child reaping what they sowed?

Why would you assume that they are not reaping what they sow?

Sub, am I reading you right? You are saying that somehow an abused child deserves it?

[_subgenius]

Sub, am I reading you right? You are saying that somehow an abused child deserves it?

no, you are not reading right...what i said, ironically it was what i wrote....which was a question, not a statement.
But, hey, ignore the text and bring your own interpretation to the table.
Hmmm...you seem to assume that either the child deserves it or does not deserve it
Aside from the obvious false dichotomy that your question proposes, we can explore some options:

If the doctrine of coming to earth presupposes a lottery for whatever mortal vessel one "lands" in then perhaps there is a discussion on that topic...but what if the vessel is by choice?
If you take a position that the vessel fills itself then that is another discussion altogether different.
If you take the position that a spirit fills the vessel by choice then certainly an argument can be made that the spirit had foreknowledge of what was in store, even if this knowledge is obscured by the veil...this by no means speaks to any notion of "deserving", but it does require one to question whether it is the spirit of the body that one considers as "innocent" - as i presume is your position one way or the other?
If you take the position that the child is wholly "innocent", with no knowledge of good/evil then whatever may be occurring is of no consequence or suffering to the child, for it only knows what it has been taught - this is an indefensible position in my opinion, and often accompanies the shallowest of atheists.

So....what say you? How do you know that an abused child is not reaping what they have sown?

....and exactly what foundation do you lay for whether a person "deserves" anything or not?

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
I didn't create any false dichotomy for you, I just asked for clarification of you previous inquiry.

I take no position that any child deserves to be abused. I respect no system nor god that would pose that an innocent child is placed into an abusive situation in compensation for some premortal behavior. A child is innocent and defenseless, the weakest of us and any justification for abuse is reprehensible.

If you take the position that the child is wholly "innocent", with no knowledge of good/evil then whatever may be occurring is of no consequence or suffering to the child, for it only knows what it has been taught

Are you saying that it ok that a child is abused, because it can not comprehend otherwise? If so, please let me know what community you live in so I can keep my kids the hell away from you. I don't need the address, just the general vicinity.

....and exactly what foundation do you lay for whether a person "deserves" anything or not?

No one, and I mean absolutely no one deserves to be abused for any reason, a child who can not defend itself and has no recourse least of all. Any system that places the onus of abuse on a child in consequence for premortal behavior is an abomination. Now some people may "deserve" what happens to them. But a child deserves to be abused?....... sorry, but no.

Does a girl dressed provocatively deserved to be raped? I would say no. The onus is entirely upon the rapist. Any system that places responsibly on the girl is evil.

[_Drifting]

Drift...countless proofs have been provided by me in previous threads (for example), all without your rebuttal, so likely this means you agree.

But let us look at some key points, in a short short list just to get the ball rolling:
Logical evidence
1. It is very unlikely that a "localized" area experienced rain for 40 day/night.
2. The rainbow's first appearance reinforces the notion that a cataclysmic event took place. Otherwise, its just business as usual...but this was a dramatic atmospheric event.
3. Local flood would not remain in place for a year
4. A local flood could not destroy all the living things upon the earth
5. The indicated design size of the ark is way too excessive for just local species of animals.
6. Spending over a century to build an ark in unlikely if Noah could have just relocated to an area away form the flood.
7. If God lied about the flood then He is in fact not God and unable to provide salvation.

Science evidence
1. The glacial period began quickly, which would require a cataclysmic event to trigger such a global climate change...the flood is a possible event as that trigger.
2. The geologic record indicates many identical features across varied ages of rocks, indicating a certain event, such as a flood, may have occurred.
3. The Paleontology record indicates that the global climate was warm and humid, indicative of a flood event.
4. The global distribution of fossil graveyards
5. The rapid covering of animal footprints on the geologic column
6. The global distribution of river terraces
7. Only modern sedimentary layers show evidence of surface drainage
8. The near-random deposition of formational sequences
9. Historically raised shorelines
10. Human artifacts that would be from pre-flood dates are currently undiscovered and thus inaccessible anywhere.
11. The scientific community actually has not discounted the probability that a global flood did occur, just not sure about how or when.
12. Ballard and Pittman's discoveries under the Black Dea
13. Masse's comet theory
14. There are no living organisms today that are older than the date of the flood (ie Redwood trees)

and aside from the obvious references in the Old Testament, the New Testament continues to reference that the flood had occurred...see the books of Job, Matthew, Luke, Peter, and Hebrews.


So, while there is a mound of scriptural, logical, archaeological, and scientific evidence which can easily be concluded to support the occurrence of a global flood....many people, such as yourself, seem to reside on the idea that since no one posted a youtube video of the flood then surely it did not, nor could not, have happened.....which is actually the funnier notion and ultimately is yet another indicator of why many atheists and their ilk are in such an incredibly minority in the "global" population....little genetic defects they are.

So, do you believe that there was a literal worldwide flood that killed every living human with the exception of the people on the ark circa 2,300BC?

(just a yes or a no will suffice)

Bump.

Now remember, your Church leaders have told you to speak boldly about what you believe in. So...

Yes or No?

[_bcuzbcuz]

14. There are no living organisms today that are older than the date of the flood (ie Redwood trees)

Remind me. Just when do you state that the flood occurred?

[_LittleNipper]

But Nipper,

You said "People reap what they sow" so how is an abused child reaping what they sowed?

Reaping what one sows is a generality. In general, people who sow to the wind will reap the whirlwind. A child may not have sown anything. However, society may sow humanism in the public educational system and the result in general maybe wild, selfish, lazy and/or unruly students. That is child abuse, as sure as, wanting to injure a child is abuse...

[_Drifting]

But Nipper,

You said "People reap what they sow" so how is an abused child reaping what they sowed?

Reaping what one sows is a generality. In general, people who sow to the wind will reap the whirlwind. A child may not have sown anything. However, society may sow humanism in the public educational system and the result in general maybe wild, selfish, lazy and/or unruly students. That is child abuse, as sure as, wanting to injure a child is abuse...

So, it is equally the case that people don't reap what sow?

[_LittleNipper]

But Nipper,

You said "People reap what they sow" so how is an abused child reaping what they sowed?

Reaping what one sows is a generality. In general, people who sow to the wind will reap the whirlwind. A child may not have sown anything. However, society may sow humanism in the public educational system and the result in general maybe wild, selfish, lazy and/or unruly students. That is child abuse, as sure as, wanting to injure a child is abuse...

[So, it is equally the case that people don't reap what is sown?

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.