The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

[Danmark]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man. It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.
Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

[ttruscott]

...

That's homeschooling geography claims if I ever heard it.....

NO it is a Christian geographic claim, details already expressed.

[Danmark]

...
And how do you know any of this?

It is a matter of study, of following the Holy Spirit and learning from some other people.

Does this theory of yours that contradicts Calvinism and Catholicism have a name?

I tend to call it Pre-Conception Existence Christianity (PCEC) theology but it is referred to by shorter less inclusive names like pre-existence, pre-life existence or pre-earthly existence lives.

Or is it your own private theory?

Private? Not hardly after 3yrs teaching it openly. If you mean am I the only believer, then no to that also. It is shared by quite a few.

Is it based on a story about talking snakes and a god who allows his people to be tortured by Satan?

No sir. It explains the story with talking snakes and a GOD who allows his people to be tortured by Satan.

What is your authority to call Calvinism and Catholicism "blasphemy."

My authority is my understanding of the reality they deny which impugns GOD's good name of love and holiness.

If you want to call Christianity "blasphemy," so be it.

I do not call Christianity blasphemy, I call their interpretation of Christianity blasphemy.

Then it is merely a matter of perspective. Yours is that almost all other interpretations of Christianity are false; that yours is the one true belief.
You claim to be teaching this system. Are there others who teach it? If so, are they your disciples? Is this your original idea or did you learn it from someone else? If so, who?

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 898 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse]the idea that by ensuring no evil will be created so no suffering could ensue means "that everything can be good" is a fallacy. If good in this context is a moral value and not just a description of this working according to plan, (ie, expediency), then it must be based on a choice. ~ ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] I used to believe this same thing. That Good was only a moral value which requires a choice to do evil, a moral dilemma to represent what good is. But then we discussed God, and what Good was in the posts of the 850s. [/color][color=chartreuse] I therefore contend that if God is considered good (having no moral dilemmas to prove his goodness) by believers and is also considered always being in existence...then by the same consideration, the concept of evil too was always in existence. Without which God would not be able to be considered good. ~ Buy Oz Moses post 857 I disagree because [b]that which is good is not conditional but is what HE is and always has been...unconditioned by any contrary expression [/b]until after creation. ~ ttruscott post 859 [/color][color=gainsboro] If that which is good(ie, God) is not conditional(ie, not requiring the creation of Evil, or any moral tests, in order to be defined) then everything [i]was [/i]good. Thus in your line or reasoning Evil did not have to exist, as Evil did not exist until after creation. This points to God putting into motion the effects that would ultimately create Evil. All he had to do was not create. Or he could have simply created without giving man a choice. This logic is not, in fact, a fallacy but a logical conclusion of the evidence. God exists. Everything is good. God creates. Evil then exists. God eradicates Evil and destroys most of his creation. Evil no longer exists. As it is stated in the book of Revelations,[/color][color=chartreuse] He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." ~ Revelation 21:4[/color][color=gainsboro], everything is good again. Let's try this one more time, but without the creation part. God exists. Everything is good. God does not create. Evil never had a chance to exist. Everything is still good. Why is this a fallacy? [/color][color=chartreuse]To achieve HIS goal HE must have given us free will. ~ ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] Please, support this statement with logic, or scripture that limits his power of attaining a true love or a true marriage with us by being forced to submit us to a free will choice. I originally stated he was omni-nothing because if he is omnipotent then I see no reason some other reality could not exist wherein we are not subject to a free will choice, resulting in billions of spiritual deaths, but we can still meet his end goal. [/color][color=chartreuse]BN thinks that no free will with therefore no chance of true love nor true marriage with GOD is an acceptable price to pay for no evil. [u]I am of the opinion that YHWH did not agree. A tiny increase of moral righteousness, holiness, true love and a true marriage is to be held infinitely above the disvalue of any amount of suffering under and for evil[/u]. ~ ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] God is given a moral dilemma. The first ever in the history of existence. And he chooses possible destruction of the majority of his creation over guaranteed peace. If nothing is wrong with the suffering and destruction of billions of his creation then why would he bother to wipe away every tear of his remaining creations afterwards? This assertion that a tiny gain of a few true love marriages being infinitely held higher than that of the suffrage of the majority of his creation is [b]selfish and apathetic[/b]. Two traits I do not find [b]synonymous with moral goodness[/b]. Add this in with your belief that...[/color][color=chartreuse]Yes, GOD could have made a universe like this, no free will, no good-no bad, like the Eastern religions suggest, but to what purpose? ~ ttruscott[/color][color=gainsboro] and it only further cements the logic that God is willing to see the majority of his creation(that he didn't have to create with any possibility of turning Evil) come to harm. This is undeniably malicious as it is his intention to do harm to those who deny him, yet it didn't have to come to this if only he didnt design life this way. His design, his choice, but our problem? And this is good? I'm interested to see how this logic works as I am not able to see how an omni-God has any excuse for suffering and destruction. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:02[/b] [/color]

[ttruscott]

...

Then it is merely a matter of perspective.

Of course it is...as I have said repeatedly over an over...

Yours is that almost all other interpretations of Christianity are false; that yours is the one true belief.

I usually present my system as superior for others to think about and I am willing to call a doctrine blasphemous to focus their study a little. And of course I think I am right, and where they contradict me, they are wrong - and so do you too.

You claim to be teaching this system. Are there others who teach it? If so, are they your disciples? Is this your original idea or did you learn it from someone else? If so, who?

I don't know if others are teaching it...I presume so but not in the detail that I do. I have no disciples and rarely ever talk to other believers. I learned it from another man and had it confirmed to me in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit has also helped me to expand it in the areas not fully developed. My teacher has asked to be kept anonymous as meaningless to any inquiry into the theology.

[ttruscott]

...

If that which is good(ie, God) is not conditional(ie, not requiring the creation of Evil, or any moral tests, in order to be defined) then everything was good.

Exactly.

Thus in your line or reasoning Evil did not have to exist, as Evil did not exist until after creation.

Excellent!

This points to God putting into motion the effects that would ultimately create Evil.

Perfectly true.

All he had to do was not create. Or he could have simply created without giving man a choice.

Yes indeed, no argument there. But HE had a goal for HIS creation including a loving marriage with HIM and there could be no fulfillment of that goal without our free will which had to entail the ability and opportunity to reject HIS goal for us (and HIS deity) or our wills were not fully free.

Let's try this one more time, but without the creation part. God exists. Everything is good. God does not create. Evil never had a chance to exist. Everything is still good.

Why is this a fallacy?

I guess I got confused in all the colours and stuff - written in the clear like this, you are indeed correct. But then there is no creation or a creation with no purpose for us. So why argue against a simple fact...we are here, we do suffer and evil does exist? Obviously if my system is true, HE decided that the chance of no one choosing to be HIS Bride was worth the chance that everyone would choose to be be eternally evil...the very worst case scenario.

In other words (and I believe as I have previously written), the presence of evil in HIS reality was a foreseen possibility and the absolute best method of dealing with it was developed. The impossibility of evil was not HIS goal (or HE would do as you have said). Evil and suffering are NOT WORSE than a creation with no ability to choose to love by their free will and no ability to engage in a true free will marriage.

To achieve HIS goal HE must have given us free will.

Please, support this statement with logic, or scripture that limits his power of attaining a true love or a true marriage with us by being forced to submit us to a free will choice. I originally stated he was omni-nothing because if he is omnipotent then I see no reason some other reality could not exist wherein we are not subject to a free will choice, resulting in billions of spiritual deaths, but we can still meet his end goal.

Omnipotence cannot mean that HE can create logical impossibilities or I cannot answer. Omnipotence just means that if it takes power to do it, He can do it. What power can make 3+3=7? What power can make the liquid form of H20 dry? What power can make someone truly in love by force? The person might not know they are being forced (irresistible compulsion) but their love would not be what ordinary people accept as true love as seen by the possible consternation of finding out they were under someone else's irresistible compulsion and not their own free will.

And since when do we accept a forced marriage as a true marriage? A marriage with no emotional bond is a fake marriage of expediency only, not a real marriage let alone a perfect marriage worthy of GOD.

If nothing is wrong with the suffering and destruction of billions of his creation then why would he bother to wipe away every tear of his remaining creations afterwards?

I don't think you can point to where I ever contended that there was nothing wrong with evil and suffering. I really don't like people putting words / ideas in my mouth I do not intend. The fact that there was an ultimate disvalue to the smallest sin is the reason HE wipes all tears (probably referring to all memories of unhappiness) as you suggest. I reject your characterization of what I said fully.

This assertion that a tiny gain of a few true love marriages being infinitely held higher than that of the suffrage of the majority of his creation is selfish and apathetic.

and it only further cements the logic that God is willing to see the majority of his creation(that he didn't have to create with any possibility of turning Evil) come to harm.

You miss the mark with your premise (that I have never espoused; you read a personal assumption into my words, again) that only a few get married to GOD and the vast majority suffer forever.

The number of reprobate on earth who will never repent nor agree to be HS bride by their free will is much much greater than those who have committed themselves to HIM as HIS bride but who rebelled against HIM and HIS plan for the judgement of the reprobates and therefore who must be redeemed, saved from their addiction to evil and brought to holy righteousness so they are heaven/marriage ready. The whole number of sinners, sinful elect and reprobate, are born as humans as the method HE has chosen to teach HIS sinful elect to eschew evil and be holy, ready for marriage.

And it is my contention that this whole number of sinners, the whole of the human race, does not make up any significant % of those holy elect who never sinned, who became holy by their free will choice, who live with their GOD and work for HIM as angels and are waiting for the rest of HIS sinful elect to get with the program and become holy. The number of those who chose to marry HIM is uncountable compared to the few who rejected HIM eternally and the even fewer who accepted HIM as their spouse but indulged in idolatry of the reprobate anyway.

You make such wonderful charts I wish you had a chart of my beliefs to check before ranting off the rails about what you think I believe only to find out later you got it wrong, sigh.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 904 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse] Omnipotence cannot mean that HE can create logical impossibilities or I cannot answer. Omnipotence just means that if it takes power to do it, He can do it. What power can make 3+3=7? What power can make the liquid form of H20 dry? What power can make someone truly in love by force? The person might not know they are being forced (irresistible compulsion) but their love would not be what ordinary people accept as true love as seen by the possible consternation of finding out they were under someone else's irresistible compulsion and not their own free will. And since when do we accept a forced marriage as a true marriage? A marriage with no emotional bond is a fake marriage of expediency only, not a real marriage let alone a perfect marriage worthy of GOD. ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] Omnipotence generally means to be able to make 3+3=7 or to bend reality to your whim. So I understand you would state you couldn't answer it if indeed it meant to make anything possible or impossible at will. Omnipotence would allow a forced marriage(with no free will) to seem more wonderful than anything, including a true love marriage, to both ourselves and our God. To try and understand how that could be, just think how you have a concept of God in your head and heart that I can't grasp. But, little by little I have come to grasp some tiny bits of your concepts. Imagine, if you will that you had the power to instantaneously make me not only grasp the concept better than your own grasp, but simultaneously you could make yourself forget the entire concept and become a 100% believing and preaching Buddhist. That's true omnipotence. Nothing is beyond its power. Which is why I do not believe he can be omnipotent if he is restricted to any kind of rule set wherein he is unable or powerless to avoid suffering. So by forced marriage I in no way mean the kind we deal with on earth, as with omnipotence heaven could be hell and hell could be heaven just as blue can be red, and red now blue, if God so chooses it to switch in the middle of our debate. [/color][color=chartreuse]I don't think you can point to where I ever contended that there was nothing wrong with evil and suffering. I really don't like people putting words / ideas in my mouth I do not intend. The fact that there was an ultimate disvalue to the smallest sin is the reason HE wipes all tears (probably referring to all memories of unhappiness) as you suggest. I reject your characterization of what I said fully. ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] I am sorry if you feel I was misrepresenting you by stating nothing wrong. When I read your words held infinitely above I took a literal stance as infinite means having no boundaries or limits, being impossible to measure or calculate. Leaving the suffering portion to be held at nothing in comparison. It is a similar misunderstanding as mine and your own interpretation of the word omnipotence. But still, I am sorry. I'm not interested in insulting or misrepresenting you. [/color][color=chartreuse] You miss the mark with your premise (that I have never espoused; you read a personal assumption into my words, again) that only a few get married to GOD and the vast majority suffer foreverAnd it is my contention that this whole number of sinners, the whole of the human race, does not make up any significant % of those holy elect who never sinned..." ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] Can you blame me for presuming you also believed that few will enter the kingdom of heaven as we are now in the nine hundreds of posts and never have you stated your belief on the amount of damned or saved? But I have certainly (from the beginning, when we discussed the math of the flood) been mathematically bringing in the numbers of my belief of suffrage. Mind you, with no contention from either you or anyone else. So pardon me if it sounded like I grafted my personal assumptions onto yours. I humbly retract my numbers, and ask that we start over. How many do you believe will be in hell, and how many in heaven? What scriptures or logic have you applied to this number? I use the gospels of the New Testament and the flood story to say the hell amount will be much larger than the heaven amount. Please explain. By the way, I [b]did[/b] check my charts, but you never denied nor confirmed the information above. They are being adjusted, I am having my men work on the calculations as we speak. (I turn to my generals in our chart room much in the way Hitler did to his generals in his underground bunkers war room, in the movie DownFall. I speak German to my men to make it more theatrical, for their mistake about the charts accuracy.) Wie kannst du es wagen? Glauben Sie, das ist ein Spiel? Wir stehen Debatte! Ich werde nicht akzeptieren, ein weiteres Scheitern von einer von euch! Ich bin in der Stimmung fr Sandwiches! Wohin sollen wir gehen? In den U-Bahnen? Um Quiznos? Wie wre blimpies? Ich hre ihre Sandwiches waren ein Traum! (Exit stage right) [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:05[/b] [/color]

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 904 by ttruscott]

Omnipotence cannot mean that HE can create logical impossibilities or I cannot answer.

...

Omnipotence generally means to be able to make 3+3=7 or to bend reality to your whim.

...

This is so far from the Christian norm I will call you on it. No sect of Christianity I know uses this definition because it is patently absurd.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 904 by ttruscott]

Omnipotence cannot mean that HE can create logical impossibilities or I cannot answer.

...

Omnipotence generally means to be able to make 3+3=7 or to bend reality to your whim.

...

This is so far from the Christian norm I will call you on it. No sect of Christianity I know uses this definition because it is patently absurd.

Then they do not define god as being all powerful (or omnipotent then).

If he is omnipotent, then he can do anything, including making 3+3=7 and bending reality to his/her/its own whim. By definition this is possible.

[Zzyzx]

.

This is so far from the Christian norm I will call you on it. No sect of Christianity I know uses this definition because it is patently absurd.

Oh, has patently absurd no longer acceptable in Christnedom?

Staff turning into snake
Donkey conversing in human language
Long-dead bodies coming back to life
Water magically turning into wine
Blindness cured with spit and mud
Three-in-one supernatural entities
Storm calmed by command

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 906 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse] Omnipotence cannot mean that HE can create logical impossibilities or I cannot answer. ~ttruscott "Omnipotence generally means to be able to make 3+3=7 or to bend reality to your whim. ~Buy Oz Moses "This is so far from the Christian norm I will call you on it. No sect of Christianity I know uses this definition because it is patently absurd. ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] Wish I were making it up. But alas, no [b]Omnipotent [/b] [i]adjective[/i] (of a deity) having [b][u]unlimited[/u] [/b]power; [b]able to do [u]anything[/u][/b]. synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, preeminent, most high; [/color][color=chartreuse]God Reigns Over Everything Because He has Limitless Power The Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God absolutely must go together. He reigns and therefore He must have power. To reign sovereignly, He must have all power. Limitless power. Gods power is incomprehensible. In our human understanding we just cannot mentally grasp the plenitude of His power. He is self-existent and does not depend on anything or anyone else for His power. ~theroadto31.com/2014/03/gods-limitless-power.html In spite of the fact that Paul had asked much of God in his prayer, in spite of the seeming impossibility of uniting all mankind under one spiritual banner, Paul concludes the prayer with a statement that the commentators call a "super-superlative." Paul (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) coined the compound word "exceedingly, abundantly, above" to express God's capacity to transcend all that we ask or think. (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 70.) Although Paul has asked much, God can and is willing to grant more. In order to appreciate Paul's super-superlative Hendrickson suggests the following should be noted concerning Paul's reasoning:[b] "a) God is able to do all we ask him to do; b) He is even able to do all that we dare not ask but merely imagine; c) He can do more than this; d) far more; e) very far more!" God is well deserving of the "glory in the church" based on His power[/b] ~www.bible.ca/ef/expository-ephesians-3-20-21.htm We Serve a Limitless God Summary: God is infinite. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-capable. There are no limits restricting God. Yet despite this, to their own harm His followers tend to limit the power of God by erroneous thinking. ~www.jimfeeney.org/no-limits-unlimited-God.html The Majesty of Gods Limitless Power God told Abraham that he was going to have a son in his old age, and Abraham was a little quizzical about it. In Genesis18: 14, God asked Abraham, Is anything too hard for the LORD? Later, Jeremiah gives the answer: There is nothing too hard for thee. There is no promise too hard for God to keep. There are over thirty thousand promises in the Bible, and God will keep His Word. If God made the promise, He cannot lie. There is no promise too hard for God to keep. Theres no prayer too hard for God to answer. Jesus said in Matthew 21:22, And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. When you ask in prayer and believe, youll receive. There is no problem too hard for God to solve. God specializes in things that seem impossible. Now God may not solve your problem the way you want Him to, but theres no problem too hard for God to solve. Theres no person too hard for God to save. God can save anyone if hell come to Him. ~www.lwf.org/site/News2?abbr=for_&id=9647 [/color][color=gainsboro] Literally the list goes on. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:09[/b] [/color]