There is no health in us.

[floo]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

That's pure speculation, a what if. My post was in reference to human nature (making shit up etc.) and the fact that it was men who wrote of what they claimed God did or judged on. Nowhere do we have God communicating with us, today, directly. It is all from third parties, and that being, men doing what men do, writing and creating narratives.

Sadly, we do have accounts of people claiming things like the end of the world by a given date and surprise, surprise we're still here!!! I'll believe it when I see it.

You're 2000 years too late, mate. 2000 years ago God did communicate directly. You could even have sat down and have a cuppa with him if you were in Israel.

Take more water with it!

[Jack Knave]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

That's pure speculation, a what if. My post was in reference to human nature (making shit up etc.) and the fact that it was men who wrote of what they claimed God did or judged on. Nowhere do we have God communicating with us, today, directly. It is all from third parties, and that being, men doing what men do, writing and creating narratives.

Sadly, we do have accounts of people claiming things like the end of the world by a given date and surprise, surprise we're still here!!! I'll believe it when I see it.

You're 2000 years too late, mate. 2000 years ago God did communicate directly. You could even have sat down and have a cuppa with him if you were in Israel.

Pure speculation, mate. You don't know this and have no proof that it was so.

[Brownie]

He used to drink tea with A of C Robert Runcie, if anyone remembers.

[Jack Knave]

Alien,


"But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?

Because of Noah's sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22) God said he would never again destroy all life by a flood. Interesting, huh.

Why was God so crass as to use a flood? Why kill off all the animals as they hadn't sinned? Why devastate the land?

Why not?

Isn't your God intelligent and efficient. Why be heavy handed when you can produce the same effect and judgement by being more moderate and temperate and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Animals die.

Animal's live!!! What's your point?

Or, if they die what is the point of them?

My point is that you seemed to claiming that there was a problem with God letting animals in a certain area of the planet live for less time than they would normally have done.

My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

[Alien]

..
Someone said this : ""But Genesis 6-9 teaches more than that. It teaches that a whole civilisation had gone bad and God judged them."

So, has He stopped judging, because there are far worse things going on now?"

Maybe, but the whole of civilisation has not gone bad. Maybe that is why. I'm not sure.

I basically said that as it can't be faked like that today, because we know much more about natural phenomena, and such events of this nature aren't used as signs of God's judgement anymore - except by the loonies. But in those days such misguidances about God's judgement were used because they didn't know any better.

Today, God's judgement has been whisked into the metaphysical of the spiritual arena because it is safe from man's scientific and reasoning powers and as such can't be disproved and meddled with.

You are free to believe that if you so wish. If we look at the Flood though, Genesis claims that, in some way, God spoke to Noah beforehand. If someone claimed today beforehand that God has told them to do something outlandish, they did it and they were the only survivor of the disaster that person claimed God had told them about beforehand, that would be pretty good evidence that God really had spoken to them, I would have thought. It would get me thinking at least (except that I would not have survived).

Unless you are a philosophical naturalist of course, in which case you will have rejected any such evidence out of hand.

That's pure speculation, a what if. My post was in reference to human nature (making shit up etc.) and the fact that it was men who wrote of what they claimed God did or judged on. Nowhere do we have God communicating with us, today, directly. It is all from third parties, and that being, men doing what men do, writing and creating narratives.

Sadly, we do have accounts of people claiming things like the end of the world by a given date and surprise, surprise we're still here!!! I'll believe it when I see it.

You're 2000 years too late, mate. 2000 years ago God did communicate directly. You could even have sat down and have a cuppa with him if you were in Israel.

Pure speculation, mate. You don't know this and have no proof that it was so.

There is good evidence which, I would suggest, would lead anyone openly and honestly looking at it to come to the conclusion that God did become man 2000 years ago. I hope you get there at some point.

[Alien]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

[Shaker]

Why have so many people openly and honestly looked at the "evidence" and concluded (in the vernacular) that it's a crock?

Or are you going to claim that they simply didn't look openly and honestly?

[Alien]

Why have so many people openly and honestly looked at the "evidence" and concluded (in the vernacular) that it's a crock?

Or are you going to claim that they simply didn't look openly and honestly?

That's a possibility. Why do you think I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is sufficient. Don't be shy in putting your view across.

[Shaker]

That's a possibility. Why do you think I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is sufficient.

Because you are credulous, with poor critical thinking skills, led by an emotional desire to believe what you wish to be the case.

Don't be shy in putting your view across.

I'm not normally.

[BashfulAnthony]

That's a possibility. Why do you think I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is sufficient.

Because you are credulous, with poor critical thinking skills, led by an emotional desire to believe what you wish to be the case.

Don't be shy in putting your view across.

I'm not normally.

Why must you constantly demean people, Shaker? 

[Shaker]

Alan asked me a question (he stipulated "Don't be shy in putting your views across," as though I ever am) and I answered it, clearly and concisely. I am not responsible for your opinion that that answer is demeaning.

I find credulity, gullibility and superstition in grown adults demeaning. If you hold that pointing this out is itself demeaning, that's your problem. I'd sooner work towards grown adults not being credulous clots rather than pussyfoot around them.

[BashfulAnthony]

Alan asked me a question (he stipulated "Don't be shy in putting your views across," as though I ever am) and I answered it, clearly and concisely. I am not responsible for your opinion that that answer is demeaning.

I find credulity, gullibility and superstition in grown adults demeaning. If you hold that pointing this out is itself demeaning, that's your problem. I'd sooner work towards grown adults not being credulous clots rather than pussyfoot around them.

If someone holds a belief, and you disagree, then they are demeaning themselves?  You demean someone by impugning their intelligence, and that is just nasty.  Einstein you ain't!

[Shaker]

If someone holds a belief, and you disagree, then they are demeaning themselves?

Frequently - not because of my disagreement, because some beliefs demean the people who hold them. Ugly, pernicious, noxious beliefs such as racism and homophobia; ill-thought-out, gullibly accepted, rarely (if ever) questioned and tested beliefs that stand in contravention of all human experience such as theism.

You demean someone by impugning their intelligence, and that is just nasty.

No, because frequently religious belief has little or even nothing at all to do with intelligence per se. Some extremely intelligent people (intelligent otherwise, I mean) have been and are religious believers; as I see it this is because their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their intelligence - they simply allow them to bypass their critical faculties, thus escaping the same sort of hard, sceptical analytical thought that they would bring to bear on anything (or everything) else, usually for emotional reasons. What else explains the uncommon phenomenon of the religious scientist? As someone (Swift, it may have been ... I'm not sure) said, you can't reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into in the first place.

Einstein you ain't!

I don't claim to be ... but then, one thing I share with the good Professor (or wee Albert as Gonners like to call him) is that belief in a personal god is childish

[BashfulAnthony]

If someone holds a belief, and you disagree, then they are demeaning themselves?

Frequently.

You demean someone by impugning their intelligence, and that is just nasty.

No, because frequently religious belief has little or even nothing at all to do with intelligence per se. Some extremely intelligent people (intelligent otherwise, I mean) have been and are religious believers; as I see it this is because their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their intelligence - they simply allow them to bypass their critical faculties, thus escaping the same sort of hard, sceptical analytical thought that they would bring to bear on anything (or everything) else, usually for emotional reasons. What else explains the uncommon phenomenon of the religious scientist? As someone (Swift, it may have been ... I'm not sure) said, you can't reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into in the first place.

Einstein you ain't!

I don't claim to be ... but then, one thing I share with the good Professor is that belief in a personal god is childish

It is not only unpleasant to cast aspersions on a person's intelligence, it is also demeaning to the person who makes th allegation  -  and of course, it never occurred to you the light it casts you in:
 
demeaning:

causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others.
 

[Shaker]

It is not only unpleasant to cast aspersions on a person's intelligence

I addressed this in the second paragraph of my previous post, which you clearly didn't read (or understand) despite having quoted it.

it is also demeaning to the person who makes th allegation

 
No, it isn't.

[BashfulAnthony]

It is not only unpleasant to cast aspersions on a person's intelligence

I addressed this in the second paragraph of my previous post, which you clearly didn't read (or understand) despite having quoted it.

it is also demeaning to the person who makes th allegation

 
 
No, it isn't.

It demeans you, like it or not.

[Shaker]

No it doesn't. It's just a feeble tu quoque because you can't gainsay it in any other way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, because frequently religious belief has little or even nothing at all to do with intelligence per se. Some extremely intelligent people (intelligent otherwise, I mean) have been and are religious believers; as I see it this is because their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their intelligence - they simply allow them to bypass their critical faculties, thus escaping the same sort of hard, sceptical analytical thought that they would bring to bear on anything (or everything) else, usually for emotional reasons. What else explains the uncommon phenomenon of the religious scientist? As someone (Swift, it may have been ... I'm not sure) said, you can't reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into in the first place.

A typical Shaker shit outturn.

Look

No, because frequently Atheism has little or even nothing at all to do with intelligence per se. Some extremely intelligent people (intelligent otherwise, I mean) have been and are atheists; as I see it this is because their atheism has nothing to do with their intelligence - they simply allow them to bypass their critical faculties, thus retreating into the same sort of hard, sceptical anal thought that they would bring to bear on anything (or everything) else, usually for emotional reasons. What else explains the  phenomenon of the atheist who confuses science with atheism? As someone (Swift, it may have been ... I'm not sure) said, you can't reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into in the first place.

[BashfulAnthony]

No it doesn't. It's just a feeble tu quoque because you can't gainsay it in any other way.

Don't like the truth, eh?

[Shaker]

No it doesn't. It's just a feeble tu quoque because you can't gainsay it in any other way.

Don't like the truth, eh?

Yes. Prefer it every time.

[BashfulAnthony]

No it doesn't. It's just a feeble tu quoque because you can't gainsay it in any other way.

Don't like the truth, eh?

Yes. Prefer it every time.

Good. then you have to accept that you do, indeed, demean yourself by your denigration  of others' intelligence:  because that is the truth.

[Shaker]

No it doesn't. It's just a feeble tu quoque because you can't gainsay it in any other way.

Don't like the truth, eh?

Yes. Prefer it every time.

Good. then you have to accept that you do, indeed, demean yourself by your denigration  of others'intelligence:  because that is the truth.

No; because just like Alan Burns's beliefs about God, it's just an opinion.

[BashfulAnthony]

No it doesn't. It's just a feeble tu quoque because you can't gainsay it in any other way.

Don't like the truth, eh?

Yes. Prefer it every time.

Good. then you have to accept that you do, indeed, demean yourself by your denigration  of others'intelligence:  because that is the truth.

No; because just like Alan Burns's beliefs about God, it's just an opinion.

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.  Okay?  It is only an opinion, but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

[Shaker]

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.

No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard.

[BashfulAnthony]

Your opinion denigrates AB's intelligence.

No. Alan needs no help in denigrating his own intelligence from me or from anyone else. He does a sterling job of that practically every time he puts fingers to keyboard.

There you go again.