To not weigh in the good, while highlighting the bad for biased purposes is, likewise, illogical.
Eight saved; several million killed. Between two and seven or eight of most animals saved; all others killed. Plant life left to fend for itself.
The good is far outweighed by the bad.
Nope. Not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is pointing out that the "bad stuff" is irrelevant to the theological truth of the story, when properly exegeted.
Again, your idea of proper exegesis is bad.
At this point in fact, it's a bit ridiculous to state that it's irrelevant. The only way to show that Noah and his crew, and their cargo, are 'saved' from anything, is to show
what they are saved from. And what are they saved from? Total destruction of
everyone else by drowning.
Now, your problem, is that you wish the exegesis to show
only what the story author intended. As I state quite clearly earlier, it's absurd to imagine the bible would ever show any action of God in a negative light, as it's essentially his advertisement. But, the reality is that the examination of the text shows a lot more than the spin. the background upon which the rosy picture is painted is essentially a swath of crimson. Saints set bears upon children; brimstone wipes out cities;
the entire population of the Earth are killed and then, we are threatened with such destruction again at a later date.
All in the name of love? Of forgiveness? It's laughable.
It would be laughable, that is, if it weren't so abjectly horrific.
You have an agenda: To point out to the morally-gullible the bad parts of the bible.
Your agenda is the opposite. Except for the morally gullible part. The exegesis shows the Bible
is bad. The morally gullible must be protedcted, because they are the most vulnerable to being told 'God murdering millions to save a few is a-ok!"
"Concealing the bad bits" isn't the goal. "Weighing the bad bits" is the goal.
They were weighed. This is the result.
is neither eloquent, nor virtuous. Flouting decent behavior isn't virtuous. Which renders your above statement a falsehood. Also not virutuous.
A short answer was all that was needed. To pretend each sentence I produce must be verbose is a false requirement, because you can't come up with anything else; so you play more pretend. I have given no falsehoods here, which you cannot say yourself. Your entire philosophy as demonstrated here is based on deceit.
Nope. In other words, I don't wish to expend the time or energy debating him. Had you been around long enough, you'd have noticed that I spend plenty of time contradicting "fellow believers." Either that, or you're intentionally making a false statement here.
No evidence to support your statement is present in this thread. Your statement is obviously false, especially since you then did not take the opportunity to demonstrate your 'virtue' here, right at that moment. You shied away from it, which is telling.
hardly a prediction, since I've already indicated that I won't.
QED
Uh huh. And you seem to have a desperate need to make sure that we're all aware of that little factoid. As if being published is something special.
Again, as I noted, it was in response to something of a similar nature;' Im not grandstanding.
So... your signature line is simply a reaction to his posts? Must be scary to give away that much power to someone you don't know.
That was there before I ever interacted with him, so no, and he has no power over me, please. Look at you warping context! Something you appear to like to do a lot.
It's a literary device. A story. Metaphor. and that makes a difference -- as I've said numerous times before. And it's not "murder," as I've alsopointed out.
Point it out to your brethren, who believe it's history.
Wait, no, you never would, allow me:
Behold, Robin: this guy agrees with me. You're taking a fairy tale literally.
About the use of the word 'murder': it's true, it's an emotionally charged word. And in a literal sense, it does require the death to be against a law of some sort. While you cannot with any sincerity deny the 'with malice aforethought' on God's part, I guess I can relent that there is no written law saying God cannot kill any one. Alas, because he abuses that loophole all the time. So which synonym shall I use in future?
annihilate,
asphyxiate, assassinate, crucify,
dispatch, do away with, do in,
drown,
dump, electrocute,
eradicate,
erase*,
execute, exterminate,
extirpate,
finish, garrote,
get*, guillotine,
hang,
hit*, immolate, liquidate, lynch,
massacre, neutralize,
obliterate,
off*,
poison, polish off, put away, put to death, rub out,
slaughter, slay,
smother, snuff, strangle,
suffocate,
waste*, wipe out, zap
Of that short list, I'm feeling partial to either 'exterminate' or 'slaughter'.
But be relieved, ye believers! God only
slaughtered everyone else on Earth! It's so much better now.
As a registered minister, you are, no doubt, aware that, since there is a distinction between humanity and Divinity (as outlined in the Bible -- which we're arguing here), to "place God's actions in the hands of a [human] person" is theologically irresponsible. That renders the subsequent verdict also irresponsible.
Not all ministers follow your tattered Bible. that's not a requirement for ministry. All religion isn't simply your religion with different names pasted in. the Bible is the last book anyone interested in humanity and divinity should follow for ideas. As I've been showing.
In addition: in what way is it theologically irresponsible? lol, quite the opposite. No such rule or saw exists. More deception on your part. And if the Bible states that, well, what better way to keep the ignorant, ignorant? Don't think about it, just obey.
None.
Since you're the one who put forth the opinion, it's up to you to back it up with sufficient exegesis. So far, you haven't done that.
I have.
