The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:42 am

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.

Buy Oz Moses · Post by **Buy Oz Moses** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:24 am

[Replying to post 938 by ttruscott]

[row color=black] [color=chartreuse] three divine beings (each having divine attributes) are ONE GOD, a perfect UNITY so perfect that it is rightly said that GOD is ONE, echad, a unity. ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] What is this, Voltron? [/color][color=chartreuse]And I'll form the head! [/color][color=gainsboro] [b]God[/b] [i]noun[/i] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [b]Being[/b] [i]noun [/i] the nature or essence of a person. a living thing. [b]Monotheism[/b] [i]noun[/i] the doctrine or belief that there is only one God. [b]A Trinity[/b] [i]noun[/i] a group of three people or things. the state of being three. [u]Logic[/u]: God is the supreme being [i]Singular[/i] The creator [i]Singular [/i] The ruler [i]Singular[/i] Monotheism is the belief in only one God. One supreme being. [i]Singular[/i] A being is a living thing [i]Singular[/i] Yet, the Christian God is a trinity. A trinity is a group of three people or things [i]Plural[/i] So God is both a singular thing and a plural thing. He is both one being and three beings. You say three parts make up a whole. Perhaps on a pie chart because three slices of the pie make up one pie. But three slices do not make up one slice, and three pies do not make up one pie. But do three beings make up one being? Christians twist the words to mean 1+1+1=1 when in fact logically 1+1+1=3. You cannot add 1 to 1 and then add a third 1 to the mix and just get a bigger 1. You would still have three 1s. If a being is one living thing and God is the supreme being, [b]not[/b] the supreme [i]beingS[/i] then does three beings equalling one being not shout out logical impossibility to you? Clever how you state three divine beings = one God but a God is a being as well. A supreme being, to be exact, but a being nonetheless. Three slices don't make one slice, it makes a pie. So if you're ready to acknowledge that you believe three slices makes one slice then you are also acknowledging God is a logical impossibility. For it is illogical for 1+1+1 to equal 1. 3 is 3, and 1 is 1. A square is a square, and a circle is a circle. They cannot be both. 3 is 1 or Squared circle. [/color][color=chartreuse] [b]09:40[/b] [/color]

Buy Oz Moses · Post by **Buy Oz Moses** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:12 am

[Replying to post 935 by ttruscott]

[row color=black] [color=chartreuse] if some thing is A, it cannot be 'not A' or 'B which is not A'. Changing A to B might happen (miracle) but A cannot have the attributes of 'not A' and stay A. ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] Id like to do a thought experiment. [/color][color=chartreuse] [b]God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent[/b]; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? ~Numbers 23:19 [/color][color=gainsboro] Exhibit A [/color][color=chartreuse] The essence of YHWH the Father is the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and love. The essence of YHWH the Son is the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and love. The essence of YHWH the Holy Spirit is the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and love. These things are divine dna, what GOD is, not what HE does. And the interesting thing about these attributes is that the effect of more than one person having these attributes is that they form a UNITY of the divine attributes and purpose such that three divine beings (each having divine attributes) are ONE GOD, a perfect UNITY so perfect that it is rightly said that GOD is ONE, echad, a unity. ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] Exhibit B [/color][color=chartreuse] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." ~Mark 14:62 [/color][color=gainsboro] Exhibit C Ok. So what we have is God, who cannot tell a lie, because he is not a man. And he cannot repent because is not the son of man. And we have Jesus, who can repent, because he is the son of man. And I'm not sure if can lie, as it hasn't yet been proven that he ever has lied. And I'm not entirely sure that being a son of man actually makes you a man. I'd assume so but I'll set that aside for another debate, for now. For the purposes of this thought experiment lets just say he is only the son of man, and not man. By your logic, Jesus is one of the three divine beings that make up the unity that is God. So a summary of the total evidence of Exhibits A, B and C is: God [b]cannot [/b]repent. The son of man [b]can [/b]repent. The son of man is part of God. God [b]can[/b] repent? if some thing is A(not able to repent), it cannot be 'not A' or 'B(able to repent) which is not A'. Changing A(not able to repent) to B(able to repent) might happen (miracle) but A(not able to repent) cannot have the attributes of 'not A' and stay A(not able to repent). Logical impossibility? I have tried a few ways to dispel this logical impossibility. 1. The title God in the bible refers only to the father, but then Jesus cannot be one of the trinity that makes up God as it would still constitute that God is able to repent, or that a portion of God is able to repent, also dispelling the idea that God cannot repent. End result Jesus is not a part of God, or God is able to lie/repent. 2. Jesus cannot repent. But this dispels the idea that Jesus is the son of man, which means he lied in Mark chapter 14 about being the son of man. If he is a portion or part of God and not the son of man then God is able to lie. Or a part of him is. 3. Jesus is the son of man and is able to repent, and is in fact a part of God. But God is not able to repent. Which means that A can be B, and is not Not A or is still A. A logical impossibility. Your thoughts? [/color][color=chartreuse] What - given up on finding a sect that accepts omnipotence to mean the ability to to the logically impossible? ~ttruscott [/color][color=gainsboro] No, I didn't give up finding a sect of Christianity that accepts omnipotence to mean the ability to do the logically impossible I'm just waiting for to tell me if any sect that believes in the holy trinity also believes Gods omnipotence allows him to be/do the logically impossible. [/color][color=chartreuse] [b]09:41[/b] [/color]

Buy Oz Moses · Post by **Buy Oz Moses** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:48 am

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro] Okay.... So it's been over 96 hours and 36 minutes since my last post, which was the thought experiment that may prove all of Christianity should believe Omnipotence include The idea that God can in fact create logical impossibilities(if in fact the bible is taken as fact, and the Christian sect also believes in the whole trinity)... And not one response. I just want to make sure everyone had a good Halloween weekend (whether they celebrate or not), and to invite those who may have missed my thought experiment at the top of this page in post 941. I would really appreciate a gander at the experiment to see what assertions or contentions there are about this possible logical impossibility at hand. Usually we call the police after 42 hours and I waited double that time frame because of the holiday weekend. But I'm about to get on the horn, because I care about you guys. Besides Ted's examination, I would also like Peds Nurse, Slave Tam (in honor of the new Star Wars movie coming out, since Tam is a slave to Christ its a nod to Slave Leia), Tfvespasianus, Faithful One and any other believer in the holy trinity to examine the evidence in post 941 for confirmation purposes. There are follow up questions that arise if in fact the evidence is true in a believer's eyes. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:42[/b] [/color]

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:50 am

ttruscott wrote: ...These things are divine dna, what GOD is, not what HE does. And the interesting thing about these attributes is that the effect of more than one person having these attributes is that they form a UNITY of the divine attributes and purpose such that three divine beings (each having divine attributes) are ONE GOD, a perfect UNITY so perfect that it is rightly said that GOD is ONE, echad, a unity.

What you described here is 3 parts of a whole, 3 members of a group. A traditional Trinitarian would deny what you stated here.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 2:43 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
ttruscott wrote: ...These things are divine dna, what GOD is, not what HE does. And the interesting thing about these attributes is that the effect of more than one person having these attributes is that they form a UNITY of the divine attributes and purpose such that three divine beings (each having divine attributes) are ONE GOD, a perfect UNITY so perfect that it is rightly said that GOD is ONE, echad, a unity.
What you described here is 3 parts of a whole, 3 members of a group. A traditional Trinitarian would deny what you stated here.

It is an analogy after all...please let's not argue the analogy and think we are saying anything about the reality. The shared essence of divinity creates a oneness which is a unity at the essential level. I know the strands of a rope do not share the essence of the unity called rope but that is only as far as worldly analogies can go.

In the unity of GOD there is no group, just a perfect oneness without destroying the individual persons so it is not like three drops of water become one drop...

Both the group idea and the unity which dissolves the individuals are rejected by most, I think.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:17 am

[Replying to post 944 by ttruscott]

I put it to you that the lack of adequate real world analogy is because there is a logical contradiction embedded in the concept of Trinity: Father is identical to God, Son is identical to God, Ghost is identical to God, but Father is not identical to Son nor Son to Ghost. Nothing in the real world can express this idea as it is a violation of the transitive property of the identity relation. It's not called a divine mystery for nothing - if you think you have a rational model/mental image of the Trinity then you don't understand it.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:58 am

ttruscott wrote: These things are divine dna, what GOD is, not what HE does. And the interesting thing about these attributes is that the effect of more than one person having these attributes is that they form a UNITY of the divine attributes and purpose such that three divine beings (each having divine attributes) are ONE GOD, a perfect UNITY so perfect that it is rightly said that GOD is ONE, echad, a unity.

What is "divine DNA?"
I assume you are only using this as an analogy, but it raises another issue of impossibility, that a spirit, a ghost, even the Holy Ghost has a physical reality which would be necessary to have DNA to form the "seed" of Jesus to impregnate a physical being, Mary.

Buy Oz Moses · Post by **Buy Oz Moses** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:56 am

[Replying to post 946 by Danmark]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] No one has made a counter point to this thought experiment so I'll repost, and move forward with the thought to a possible conclusion until refuted of course If God cannot repent, but the Son of Man can repent... [/color][color=chartreuse](Numbers 23:19)[/color][color=gainsboro] ...and Jesus is the Son of Man... [/color][color=chartreuse](Mark 14:62)[/color][color=gainsboro] ...and Jesus is a part of the trinity that makes up God... [/color][color=chartreuse](Matthew 28:19)[/color][color=gainsboro] ...then doesn't that make God able to create a logical impossibility? Being A (not able to repent), while also being B (able to repent), while still having the attributes of A? Below I use the American penal code 31 to aid in clarity by way of an explanation of understandable human law in comparison to Gods omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence within his actions upon the moments before creation. [/color][color=chartreuse] The Legal Definition of Aiding and Abetting The phrase "aiding and abetting" means helping another person commit a crime. Prosecutors can charge you as an aider and abettor when you: 1. know the perpetrator's illegal plan, [/color][color=gainsboro] (Omniscience allows God to see that Evil will attempt to take control of Man if he is created and given an option to disobey.) [/color][color=chartreuse] 2. intentionally encourage and/or facilitate that plan, and 3. aid, promote, or instigate the crime. [/color][color=gainsboro] Sections 2 and 3 can be summed up by Gods omnipotence. If a being that can do anything, including logical impossibilities such as the example at the top of[i] being able[/i] and [i]not being able[/i] to repent, sees Evils creation in a line of possibility and does not avoid that option though it has the power to avoid that line of possibility is this not an example of aiding, promoting, instigating, or intentionally encouraging the crime of Evil? Is the giving of a free will choice to man in the least not an instigation of the crime of Evil? His requirement for a true marriage in no way requires the crime of Evil, unless that is the only possibility and with God all things are possible until proven otherwise. Continuing with the law [/color][color=chartreuse]If you have a legal duty to take every step reasonably possible to prevent the crime...and fail to do so...you could be convicted as an aider and abettor. This "legal duty" is only imposed on certain people under specific conditions. For examples, teachers, doctors and certain other professionals have a legal duty to report abuse or other suspected criminal activity. And, in California, parents have a legal duty to "exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over their minor children". So if you have a legal duty to try to prevent a crime...but do not reasonably attempt to do so...you could face accomplice liability. Penalties, Punishment and Sentencing for Aiding and Abetting If you "aid and abet" another person during the commission of a crime, you may also be referred to as an accessory before the fact. But there is no distinction between being an accessory before the fact / accomplice / "aider and abettor" or the actual perpetrator when it comes to sentencing. Each individual will be regarded as a "principal" to the crime and is subject to the same penalties as if he/she personally committed the offense. [/color][color=gainsboro] I pose the question: If God is loving in nature, love being patient and always protecting as described in 1 Chorinthians chapter 13 Then would a loving God not attempt to protect all of his pre-created creations? His pre-created children? Wouldn't an omnipotent being (who has the capability to) create a reality or choose a line of possibility that has no threat of the crimes committed by Evil to its creation? Wouldn't an omniscient, omnipotent being make it its first duty to "exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over their children" ? I then put it to you, the reader, that would you consider an omnipotent and omniscient God who purposefully choose an out come where he would have to destroy his children instead of an option free of destruction, an aider and abettor of Evil? And if so, wouldn't all of Gods destruction upon man (the flood being one of the greatest of these events) make him (since he would be regarded as a "principal" to the crime and should be subject to the same penalties as if he/she personally committed the offense of the crime of Evil) malevolent or Evil Himself? [/color]

[row color=lightslategray][b] Malevolent [/b][col color=white][right][b] Benevolent [/b][/right][row color=lightslategray][i] adjective [/i][col color=white][right][i] adjective [/i][/right][row color=lightslategray] 1 [col color=white][right] 1 [/right][row color=lightslategray][u]wishing[/u] evil or [u]harm to another or others[/u]; showing ill will; ill-disposed; [u]malicious[/u]: [col color=white][right][color=white]...........[/color] characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: [/right][row color=lightslategray]2 [col color=white][right] 2 [/right][row color=lightslategray]evil; [u]harmful; injurious[/u]: [col color=white][right] [u]desiring to help others[/u]; charitable[/right]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] God wished harm to come to another, as a benevolent and omnipotent being would be able to (and would be forced by its benevolent nature to) make itself see the actual future choice that would actually occur, and alter that reality to avoid any harm, if it would cause harm to anotherif indeed it were actually [i]only[/i] benevolent and not malevolent. Instead what we have is a benevolent and omnipotent God who has the choice to avoid harm coming to its creation, but rather, opts out of avoiding harm in favor of the version of reality where some are harmed, injured or destroyed? It is then, by no stretch of the imagination, true to conclude that The God of the bible has some of the characteristics of an Evil God. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]Evil[/b] [i]adjective[/i] profoundly immoral and [u]malevolent[/u]. [u]harmful or tending to harm[/u]. [/color][color=gainsboro] Your thoughts? [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:47[/b] [/color]

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:15 am

Buy Oz Moses wrote: ...

I pose the question:

If God is loving in nature, love being patient and always protecting as described in 1 Chorinthians chapter 13 Then would a loving God not attempt to protect all of his pre-created creations? His pre-created children? Wouldn't an omnipotent being (who has the capability to) create a reality or choose a line of possibility that has no threat of the crimes committed by Evil to its creation? Wouldn't an omniscient, omnipotent being make it its first duty to "exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over their children" ?

I then put it to you, the reader, that would you consider an omnipotent and omniscient God who purposefully choose an out come where he would have to destroy his children instead of an option free of destruction, an aider and abettor of Evil? ...

IF someone repeatedly claims that omnipotence must mean that GOD can do the logically impossible then there is no discussion fro the Christian pov. We suggest you think your way but why badger us about it since we deny categorically that the definition used is true? As intransigence is proved, the effort become boring...I assume for both sides of the hedge.

If you want to understand the Christian pov instead, this stance that the logically impossible is available to GOD 's creation must be held in abeyance while the concepts of free will, that eternal love and marriage are only able to be real in a free will environment and that free will must allow for the creation of the opposite of eternal love which will then have to be dealt with, are considered.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:42 am

Buy Oz Moses wrote:...

If God cannot repent, but the Son of Man can repent... (Numbers 23:19) ...and Jesus is the Son of Man... (Mark 14:62) ...and Jesus is a part of the trinity that makes up God... (Matthew 28:19) ...then doesn't that make God a logical impossibility? Being A, and being B, while still having the attributes of A?
...

This little bit of sophistry fails on the fact that you have not proven that the Son of Man can repent...

Don't forget that for centuries Christian scholars have accepted that cannot lie or repent is better rendered into English (that is, in better accordance with the bulk of Christian doctrine and interpretation) as need to / should lie or repent.