Loquacious Lurker wrote:God wanted everyone DEAD. Even if there were seaworthy vessels, he would have punctured a hole in the hull. He wanted to kill them ALL.
Even little children. Babies. He drowned them all, like kittens in a bag. Even the innocent. And he watched while they drowned, listened to them screaming.
Then he realized he had made a mistake. A hideous, horrible mistake. A sin. He murdered his own children. If it hadn't been a mistake, if he didn't commit an act of unspeakable brutality, then why did he have a need of repenting of it afterward? I wonder if he has to answer to some higher power, on some kind of judgment day, for what he did?
That's the kind of God you want to believe in? One that murders babies? He must not have repented sincerely, because he ordered Moses to kill babies in a freakish spree of genocide a few thousand years after Noah. So he was back to his old baby-murdering habits again, but this time we are not told whether he repented or not. Maybe he felt no remorse the third time around. He's just finished killing the firstborn of Egypt, after all. I guess the sinning gets easier and easier the more you do it. He only felt guilty the first time. He killed and killed but it wasn't enough, because the book of Revelation tells us he wants to annihilate the whole world again, just to prove he can.
That doesn't sound like a real god to me. That sounds like some kind of Bronze Age tribal deity that men with no humanity dreamed up in order to justify their unending bloodshed.
If he was a typical Bronze Age tribal deity why the huge Jewish attempt to justify it? Why the Enoch literature explaining it endlessly? Why was Enoch told that he would stand in heaven forever as a witness that God was just in what he did if the whole flood was just a ticked off God throwing around some wrath and no justification was needed?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Scottie wrote:Are we to believe that Noah's boat was the only boat around during the great flood?
Surely there were other mariners already on the sea that could survive a 40 day rainstorm without sinking, right?
I don't think the point of the story is the boat, other boats, a 40 day rainstorm or a flood.
So what is the point?
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Your knee-jerk moralizing is quite impressive - remind me not to go to the horse races with you "look at the pretty colors, there's red and green and blue. I pick him, I pick him."
So, are you recognizing that there is a God but you just find Him objectionable?
Hoops wrote:Your knee-jerk moralizing is quite impressive - remind me not to go to the horse races with you "look at the pretty colors, there's red and green and blue. I pick him, I pick him."
So, are you recognizing that there is a God but you just find Him objectionable?
Hoops wrote:Your knee-jerk moralizing is quite impressive - remind me not to go to the horse races with you "look at the pretty colors, there's red and green and blue. I pick him, I pick him."
So, are you recognizing that there is a God but you just find Him objectionable?
Are you talking to me?
It seems there are several here who self righteously proclaim their shock, couched in emotionalizm, secure in the knowledge that most here will happily support their shallow thinking.
Hoops wrote:Your knee-jerk moralizing is quite impressive - remind me not to go to the horse races with you "look at the pretty colors, there's red and green and blue. I pick him, I pick him."
So, are you recognizing that there is a God but you just find Him objectionable?
Are you talking to me?
It seems there are several here who self righteously proclaim their shock, couched in emotionalizm, secure in the knowledge that most here will happily support their shallow thinking.
But then you don't offer an explanation of the supposedly less shallow or deep view.
Please enlighten us.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Hoops wrote:Your knee-jerk moralizing is quite impressive - remind me not to go to the horse races with you "look at the pretty colors, there's red and green and blue. I pick him, I pick him."
So, are you recognizing that there is a God but you just find Him objectionable?
Are you talking to me?
It seems there are several here who self righteously proclaim their shock, couched in emotionalizm, secure in the knowledge that most here will happily support their shallow thinking.
But then you don't offer an explanation of the supposedly less shallow or deep view. Please enlighten us.
Are we able to offer an explanation with the assumption that there is the Christian God?