Zone1 Too Bad That God Promised No More Great Floods

[surada]

mythology, not faith the attributes of life - remission to paradise.

that would be the evolution of the metaphysical - physiological / spiritual content - combined at the beginning of life and the the progressions that took for the various beings that have emerged from millions of years past - all on the same ark and were given the same message from the heavens for their progression into the future ... certain attitudes are unacceptable and will be punished - beware, the desert religions are an example.

monotheistic, monogamous relationships - the pathway to perdition.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Mr Natural]

Yet just another chapter from The Big Book of Myths and Fables.

 

[DukeU]

I am telling you the accurate fact of the matter. Pangea was long split up before the most primitive of humans came along.

And there were animals on those continents.

Since you have the accurate facts, tell me more. Which animals are you referring to?

 

[DukeU]

I don't know what to say. I love the Bible stories, but I haven't believed they were history since I was 10 years old. So you look for deeper meaning in the message or you turn off faith as fraud.

But millions and billions of years ago.

 

[alang1216]

It must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good.

That is not a 'fact', you are defining 'God' as creating only the perfectly good. You don't evaluate what He creates.

He only produces existence, and all existence is good. God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. Consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence.

Another example of defining versus evaluating. Followed up by a nice bit of circular reasoning.

The question should be 'good' for who or what? Some early Christians believed there were two gods, one of the OT and one of the NT.

The OT god was concerned with the people of the covenant, the leader and nation of Israel. If the people misbehaved, the people were punished. By plague or famine or disease, everyone paid the price. The same was applied to other groups too. The people of Jericho were evil so they were exterminated by Joshua. The Pharaoh was evil so every first-born son was killed. Both of these events were bad for those involved, but good for the nation of Israel.

The god of the NT was a more personal god. If an individual was good they reaped the reward but the nation did not.

It seems to me that, if He exists, He brings both good and bad to the world and when I look around me that is exactly what I see, good and bad. Some comes from man but some does not.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't understand what you are saying.

mythology / polytheism is from the heavens ... must be understood correctly - remission to paradise or perish. from the single beginning of life on planet earth for all living beings.

 

[ding]

That is not a 'fact', you are defining 'God' as creating only the perfectly good. You don't evaluate what He creates.


Another example of defining versus evaluating. Followed up by a nice bit of circular reasoning.

The question should be 'good' for who or what? Some early Christians believed there were two gods, one of the OT and one of the NT.

The OT god was concerned with the people of the covenant, the leader and nation of Israel. If the people misbehaved, the people were punished. By plague or famine or disease, everyone paid the price. The same was applied to other groups too. The people of Jericho were evil so they were exterminated by Joshua. The Pharaoh was evil so every first-born son was killed. Both of these events were bad for those involved, but good for the nation of Israel.

The god of the NT was a more personal god. If an individual was good they reaped the reward but the nation did not.

It seems to me that, if He exists, He brings both good and bad to the world and when I look around me that is exactly what I see, good and bad. Some comes from man but some does not.

You are having the same problem reconciling "the God of the OT" with "the God of the NT" that the Gnostic Christians had - and even some modern day Christians have - but it's the same God so it's your perception of "the God of the OT" that's wrong. You need to reconcile your perception of "the God of the OT" with the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" because that's where you are erring. Otherwise there's not much sense in discussing this since there aren't two different Gods. There's only one.

 

[evenflow1969]

Lol, that flood you are hoping for would wipe you out also.

 

[alang1216]

You are having the same problem reconciling "the God of the OT" with "the God of the NT" that the Gnostic Christians had - and even some modern day Christians have - but it's the same God so it's your perception of "the God of the OT" that's wrong. You need to reconcile your perception of "the God of the OT" with the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" because that's where you are erring. Otherwise there's not much sense in discussing this since there aren't two different Gods. There's only one.

You don't really know if there is one God, or two, or 365, but that is not my point. If there is only one God, why did He change his focus from the nation of Israel to individuals of all nations? Did He change His mind (that can't be if he is perfect) or was this the plan all along? Was he initially in error and, thousands of years later, corrected himself (that can't be since he is incapable of learning)?

BTW, what is the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT"? Was He not the God of the covenant? Didn't the prophets always demand that Israel, as in the nation of Israel, repent and turn back to God?

 

[WinterBorn]

Since you have the accurate facts, tell me more. Which animals are you referring to?

For starters, Noah hadn't way to get kangaroos, wombats, sloths, jaguars and many more species. But they survived.

 

[alang1216]

For starters, Noah hadn't way to get kangaroos, wombats, sloths, jaguars and many more species. But they survived.

What about extinct marine reptiles like plesiosaurs and mosasaurs? Were they even on the arc? You'd think they'd enjoy the flood, more swimming room.

 

[BreezeWood]

For starters, Noah hadn't way to get kangaroos, wombats, sloths, jaguars and many more species. But they survived.

the invitation was not from noah -

were all beings on planet earth near heavenly extinction as humanity ... they may have been the only one's needing a boat to survive of those chosen to survive - remember which book is being chronicled, helps.

the mythical gods are spiritual realities involved in the divergent development of metaphysical, physiological evolution from the beginning to the present day.

 

[ding]

You don't really know if there is one God, or two, or 365, but that is not my point. If there is only one God, why did He change his focus from the nation of Israel to individuals of all nations? Did He change His mind (that can't be if he is perfect) or was this the plan all along? Was he initially in error and, thousands of years later, corrected himself (that can't be since he is incapable of learning)?

BTW, what is the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT"? Was He not the God of the covenant? Didn't the prophets always demand that Israel, as in the nation of Israel, repent and turn back to God?

I know that your perception of "the God of the OT" does not match the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" and until it does there's not much sense in discussing YOUR perception of "the God of the OT" as I don't accept it. Your perception of "the God of the OT" is biased by your atheism. If I believed your perception of "the God of the OT" I'd be an atheist too because your perception of "the God of the OT" is designed to produce that result.

 

[WinterBorn]

the invitation was not from noah -

were all beings on planet earth near heavenly extinction as humanity ... they may have been the only one's needing a boat to survive of those chosen to survive - remember which book is being chronicled, helps.

the mythical gods are spiritual realities involved in the divergent development of metaphysical, physiological evolution from the beginning to the present day.

No matter who invited the kangaroos, they weren't hopping from Australia to the Middle East.

 

[alang1216]

I know that your perception of "the God of the OT" does not match the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" and until it does there's not much sense in discussing YOUR perception of "the God of the OT" as I don't accept it. Your perception of "the God of the OT" is biased by your atheism. If I believed your perception of "the God of the OT" I'd be an atheist too because your perception of "the God of the OT" is designed to produce that result.

I note you have not shared what the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" was/is so it is hard for me to determine the mismatch.

 

[ding]

I note you have not shared what the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" was/is so it is hard for me to determine the mismatch.

Here's a good link for that. Huston Smith is pretty well respected. I read his book on World Religions and found it to be a fun read that was informative and helpful.

07 Judaism

 

[alang1216]

Here's a good link for that. Huston Smith is pretty well respected. I read his book on World Religions and found it to be a fun read that was informative and helpful.

07 Judaism

Thanks but I don't see any contradiction between that link and what I wrote. I'm curious where you do.

 

[BreezeWood]

No matter who invited the kangaroos, they weren't hopping from Australia to the Middle East.

you must have missed - there were native aborigine born by virgin mothers for the singular purpose to built arks world wide for the very few meant to survive ...

* remember, if chronicled by a desert dweller - expect a few "innocent" errors, forgeries and fallacies in whatever is written ... on every page.

 

[ding]

Thanks but I don't see any contradiction between that link and what I wrote. I'm curious where you do.

Well... atheism is an intellectual dead end. So I'm not surprised you are confused. Like I said before... Gnostic Christians made the same error as you. If you aren't interested in figuring it out for yourself I don't think you should expect me to do it for you. Cause I don't really believe you are interested in that. I'm sure you can find someone else to indulge your... whatever it is you want to call this. I already explained to you once why that's not me. I'd appreciate you not asking me to explain it again.

 

[alang1216]

Well... atheism is an intellectual dead end. So I'm not surprised you are confused. Like I said before... Gnostic Christians made the same error as you. If you aren't interested in figuring it out for yourself I don't think you should expect me to do it for you. Cause I don't really believe you are interested in that. I'm sure you can find someone else to indulge your... whatever it is you want to call this. I already explained to you once why that's not me. I'd appreciate you not asking me to explain it again.

Not a problem, I understand completely. If you can't answer a question you should just man up and admit it, but that is just me.