Theists, a question:

Originally posted by thorvo
I didn't quite understand what you were saying there. Could you please reword it? thanks

That it didn't happen doesn't mean it has no theological value.

Personally, I think the story has greater spiritual value because it didn't happen. If it did happen,
then its meaning is tainted by God's apparent vindictiveness.

However, my belief in its historicity is not contingent on value of the interpretation that it would
lend.

Nemesio

Originally posted by thorvo
backup would be sources of ur info, also making sure the info you have comes from reliable sources, that its something not just invented but has evidence in favor of it. atleast something good so that I know you are getting this from somewhere and not just inventing it up. And how exactly am I supposed to give you a standard of whether something is proven or ...[text shortened]... d it isn't a waste of time for you to share your proof. I am sure many would like to hear it.

If I were to cite, say, geologic record, and show that it concords with dendrochronology, and
show that it concords with fossil record, and show that it concords with radiometric dating -- all
of which have different, unrelated means of arriving at their respective conclusions -- would this
suffice as a standard for rejecting the historicity of an event?

What's your definition of a 'reliable source' or 'reliable data?'

And no proof will be forthcoming until JosephW chimes in, no matter what.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
That it didn't happen doesn't mean it has no theological value.

Personally, I think the story has greater spiritual value because it didn't happen. If it did happen,
then its meaning is tainted by God's apparent vindictiveness.

However, my belief in its historicity is not contingent on value of the interpretation that it would
lend.

Nemesio

Ok I get what you mean. But why, if the flood did happen, would it mean God wanted to get revenge? It shows he is just. He brought about the flood because man was sinning, and the wages of sin is death. That's why he had to destroy most men, not for revenge, but for justice.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If I were to cite, say, geologic record, and show that it concords with dendrochronology, and
show that it concords with fossil record, and show that it concords with radiometric dating -- all
of which have different, unrelated means of arriving at their respective conclusions -- would this
suffice as a standard for rejecting the historicity of an event? ...[text shortened]... a?'

And no proof will be forthcoming until JosephW chimes in, no matter what.

Nemesio

It might be.
Ok, I hope josephw agrees....
I mean a source that is well known to be accurate, that has a good reputation adn not a bad one, that does studies well, and by reliable data I mean the same thing. data that comes from a reliable source. I dont know how much more I can explain. What do you want me to do? type out a chart with all the diff sources and all the different studies, etc and show which ones I am fine with? that takes time that I dont have.

Originally posted by thorvo
Ok I get what you mean. But why, if the flood did happen, would it mean God wanted to get revenge? It shows he is just. He brought about the flood because man was sinning, and the wages of sin is death. That's why he had to destroy most men, not for revenge, but for justice.

Well, that's kind of like saying that all the little children in Hiroshima deserved to die because "man was sinning and the wages of sin is death." If that story is historically true, then you can be pretty sure that innocents suffered and died.

The most intriguing part of that story is the part that is rarely told, where Noah gets drunk and humiliates his family. That is no accident considering what he must have seen with all the bloated, floating bodies.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Well, that's kind of like saying that all the little children in Hiroshima deserved to die because "man was sinning and the wages of sin is death." If that story is historically true, then you can be pretty sure that innocents suffered and died.

The most intriguing part of that story is the part that is rarely told, where Noah gets drunk and humili ...[text shortened]... That is no accident considering what he must have seen with all the bloated, floating bodies.

You like to twist people's words, eh? Thats not nice.
Yes, Noah does get drunk. Who says he was perfect? everyone sins. But the point is that Noah followed and believed in the Lord and obeyed Him much more than the other people. The other people worshipped other gods and were rebellious to God. They did not believe in God. I don't know what you are trying to say by bringing up that Noah got drunk.

Originally posted by thorvo
That's why he had to destroy most men, not for revenge, but for justice.

This is a theological and not historical point, but why would God, in His
infinite Majesty and Power, have to flood the whole earth and all
the animals, plants, and civilizations. Why couldn't He just strike down,
painlessly say, all people? Were the infants sinners worthy of drowning?
Were the camels and sheep? God had, at His disposal, a wide range --
no, infinite range -- of options, but He chose one which was savage by
any standard. Why? Was this the only justice possible? Was this the
best justice possible? Do you genuinely believe that 100% of the people
in China, North America, and South America were all evil to the point
of deserving a flooding death?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is a theological and not historical point, but why would God, in His
infinite Majesty and Power, have to flood the whole earth and all
the animals, plants, and civilizations. Why couldn't He just strike down,
painlessly say, all people? Were the infants sinners worthy of drowning?
Were the camels and sheep? God had, at His disposal, a wide ...[text shortened]... and South America were all evil to the point
of deserving a flooding death?

Nemesio

This isn't theological. It's stated in the Bible plainly. Yes, He has an infinite number of possibilities to have gotten rid of sinners. But if he did it without causing man to have any pain, just in a flash have him disappear, then why would God kill man in the first place? The point was they had to pay for the great sinful acts they were doing. When someone does something wrrong, whatever, you punish him for doing it. Lets say its your son. He stealed some money of yours. Are you going to give him a punishment that will be fun for him or wont hurt some and make him think about his actions? The whole point of punishment is to make someone pay for his actions. In this case God chose a flood. But get a load of this: God waited for 120 years while Noah constructed the ark to warn the people. He had mercy. 120 years of time to repent! But since the people didn't repent, God finally had to bring about the flood. The camels and sheep and other animals, no they didnt sin. But animals aren't like humans. Humans were made in the image of God, animals aren't. Besides, two of every kind entered the ark so no specie was completely removed from the earth. As for being savage, it may have been, but Genesis 6:5 says: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, adn that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." That tells you how bad the people were sinning. The wages of sin is death. God chose the flood. Since he created man he knows what to do with man and what is the right punishment. Simple as that.

Thorvo, I'll ask my questions again, because you really didn't quite
answer them:

1)
Why did God have to flood the whole earth to punish humankind? If
you insist that it be painful in this lifetime (because the punishment is
ostensibly in the afterlife, anyway), then why couldn't God have just
smitten people in a really painful, agonizing way rather than wipe every
single thing off the face of the planet, and force Noah to go through
the rigmarole of building an ark?

2)
Do you believe that every single person, old and young, elderly and
infant, on every continent, living in every region of the earth was so
sufficiently evil that they deserved such savage punishment? Other
than Noah and family, do you really, really believe that the entire
population of the earth (which estimates place at 20 million people
for 4000 BCE) was that evil, that there wasn't just one other person who
wasn't quite so evil as to deserve such a punishment?

Nemesio

but Genesis 6:5 says: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, adn that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." That tells you how bad the people were sinning. The wages of sin is death. God chose the flood. Since he created man he knows what to do with man and what is the right punishment. Simple as that.[/b]

Originally posted by thorvo
God waited for 120 years while Noah constructed the ark to warn the people. He had mercy. 120 years of time to repent! But since the people didn't repent, God finally had to bring about the flood.

Do you think the people living in North America knew about Noah?
Do you think the people living in China knew about Noah?
Do you think the people living in Hawai'i knew about Noah?

The camels and sheep and other animals, no they didnt sin. But animals aren't like humans.

Yes, but Noah had to go through all of that work for something God
could have just as easily accomplished with, say, lots of lightning on
each of the millions of people living on earth.

As for being savage, it may have been...

So you admit that God was savage. Do you think that God had no
other choice? Do you think that there is anyone so evil that, if God wanted,
could encourage them towards goodness?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Thorvo, I'll ask my questions again, because you really didn't quite
answer them:

1)
Why did God have to flood the whole earth to punish humankind? If
you insist that it be painful in this lifetime (because the punishment is
ostensibly in the afterlife, anyway), then why couldn't God have just
smitten people in a really painful, agonizing way rath ...[text shortened]... just one other person who
wasn't quite so evil as to deserve such a punishment?

Nemesio

1) He had to flood the whole earth to punish mankind because that was his way of getting rid of the incredible wickedness of the people on the earth. He chose that way, for whatever his reasons. As to why he didn't smitten people in a really painful way, he also has his own reasons. Yet remember the wages of sin is death. Sometimes God punishes people without killing them, other times not. this time their sin was so great God decided the only way to get rid of it was to destroy them completely. Also, by forcing Noah to build the ark, he gave the other people a LOT of time to repent and think about what Noah preached to them.

2) remember the earth changed a lot because of the flood. the world back then was different than it is now. And why do you assume that the people were all over the earth? It hadn't been too long after God made Adam and Eve that he sent the flood. Like 1000 years, maybe more, I dont know. But the people didn't spread out everywhere. I wasnt there to see how Noah preached, or if he traveled all around the world to preach. But it does say that Noah told the people over and over to repent. Yes, I believe that only Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives were the only good people on the earth at the time. The Bible says that the wickedness of the people was great, but Noah foudn favor in the eyes of the Lord. Surely if God saved Noah and his family, very few out of so many wicked, why would he not save someone else that were good too? it doesnt make sense.

I hope this was a bit clearer and answered your questions. God has his reasons for the ways he picks to punish people. We dont always know all of them.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvo
[b]God waited for 120 years while Noah constructed the ark to warn the people. He had mercy. 120 years of time to repent! But since the people didn't repent, God finally had to bring about the flood.

Do you think the people living in North America knew about Noah?
Do you think the people living in China knew about ...[text shortened]... ere is anyone so evil that, if God wanted,
could encourage them towards goodness?

Nemesio[/b]

Ok first of all you are making the assumption that the world today was exactly the same as the world back then. That isnt a good assumption. The flood changed it greatly. Another, I think it says in the Bible that the people didn't spread out over the whole world like God wanted them to and clustered together more.

Yes God could of. Whats the big deal that he chose a flood? Lightning wouldn't have left any signs of what he did. With a flood, there would be a lot more evidence and signs for people to know that the flood did happen.

Wait, I am not admitting anything. I didn't say it wasn't savage because you might say well thats just your opinion or you are just saying that to defend what you believe. And I definitley didn't say God was savage. he is just, and whatever punishment he gives to sinners is what they deserve. simple. God didnt have no other choice. He had plenty. I suppose if he chose some other way you would probably be arguing about it too. God gives chances to every person. Some people reject his offer and mercy, others take it. He doesn't leave a person without a chance. God can change any person's heart, but that person has to let him. God doesn't control us like robots. He wants us to love him, and if he forces us to, then its not real love. I hope I answered your questions clearly enough. 🙂

Originally posted by thorvo
Yes God could of. Whats the big deal that he chose a flood? Lightning wouldn't have left any signs of what he did.

Really? No charred corpses? Forest fires?

Satan: Wow! Loved that flood thingy. I especially loved those baby corpses swirling in the current.

God: Well, I had to do it.

Satan: A bit flashy, though, isn’t it? I mean, deniability’s going to be tough.

God: Deniability? I don’t want deniability! I want the world to know that I did it.

Satan: Ah, I get it! Just like the serial killer who secretly wants to get caught, so he leaves obvious clues . . .

God: Secretly? Get caught? Hey, I’ve been open and above-board about the whole thing.

Satan: So, how are you going to plead? Before the court of history, I mean?

God: How’s “justifiable homicide” sound?

Satan: Hmmm . . . Normally I act as your prosecuting attorney, but you might consider revising that to “temporary insanity.”

Originally posted by vistesd
Satan: Wow! Loved that flood thingy. I especially loved those baby corpses swirling in the current.

God: Well, I had to do it.

Satan: A bit flashy, though, isn’t it? I mean, deniability’s going to be tough.

God: Deniability? I don’t want deniability! I want the world to know that I did it.

Satan: Ah, I get it! Just like the seri ...[text shortened]... act as your prosecuting attorney, but you might consider revising that to “temporary insanity.”

I had envisioned a follow-up where God introduces his new attorney, Joe Pesci, but I can't really swear enough on here to do Joe justice.