Originally posted by rwingett
Your critique of my debating style is rubbish. I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops. If you think god's concern for man's soul overrides his concerns for man's body, the just say it and quit wasting everybody's time.
So let us assume fo through Christ's sacrifice (supposedly), then just what purpose did the flood serve?
Your critique of my debating style is rubbish.
Rubbish it may be, but truth it is, as well.
I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops.
The "preparatory hoops" are critical to the conclusion, so I'll thank you to allow me to make my points, if you'll simply suffer my laborious means of getting to them.
If you think god's concern for man's soul overrides his concerns for man's body, the just say it and quit wasting everybody's time.
What I think about God's concerns will only prove the point to me. The issue here is what
you consider to be God's concerns. You have rightly gleaned some of God's attributes available only through the written Word, so the question remains whether or not you have also deduced what the Bible says about God's values.
So let us assume for the moment that saving man's soul is a worthy goal. The question remains, are any means justified in accomplishing that goal? The answer is NO.
Wait a tic. Weren't you the one who--- just a few posts back--- stated that the life was more important than the arm?
No amount of theistic moral relativism can justify genocide as an acceptable means toward any goal. Any party engaging in an act as heinous as genocide is to be condemned, regardless of their celestial status or the purported worthiness of their goal.
Let's go back and change a few of the nouns and verbs and see if your previous post is consistent. It would look something like this:
No amount of man's moral relativism can justify cutting off his arm as an acceptable means toward any goal. Any party engaging in an act as heinous as deliberate amputation is to be condemned, regardless of their ownership position or the purported worthiness of their goal.
Any man could use deliberate amputation to accomplish his goals, of course, but he would automatically forfeit any claim to self-respect, or being self-loving. Such a man would be a capricious, wrathful and malignant man, who is not morally perfect and who does not deserve respect. A self-loving and morally perfect man would have necessarily chosen a means less heinous than deliberate amputation. Any man that wilfully resorts to deliberate amputation is to be condemned, not respected.
In light of your previous post claiming that the arm was to be sarificed for the sake of the life, your current sentiment is inconsistent.
As for the goal of saving man's souls, how effective was god's foray into genocide in accomplishing it?
Other than Noah and his immediate family, those in Noah's day were incorrigible. They had so defiled the human race that extension of their lives would have ended the human race, rendering God's promise to the woman impossible to fulfill. God saved the human race by getting rid of those whose actions/decisions were effectively destroying the human race.
As the promise to the woman (her seed would crush the head of the serpent) entailed a virgin pregnancy which was still in the future during Noah's time, and as that pregnancy was to result in the forgiveness of all sin through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Flood preserved a remnant of believers through whom the promise would continue.