(June 13, 2023 at 3:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: All these baby animals spending 40 days and 40 nights on a boat.  Were they milking Mrs. Noah for nourishment?  Was Noah chewing up food and regurgitating it for the animals that eat like that?  

 
As previously stated they would need a whole lot of dairy animals.

[/quote]

(June 13, 2023 at 3:50 pm)Tomato Wrote: If you have to make believe to support make believe, what do you get?

"Science."

(June 13, 2023 at 4:28 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 3:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: All these baby animals spending 40 days and 40 nights on a boat.  Were they milking Mrs. Noah for nourishment?  Was Noah chewing up food and regurgitating it for the animals that eat like that?  

 
As previously stated they would need a whole lot of dairy animals.

[/quote]

If all the animals are babies, even the dairy animals aren't yet lactating.

(June 13, 2023 at 4:29 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 3:50 pm)Tomato Wrote: If you have to make believe to support make believe, what do you get?

"Science."

science can make demonstrations to validate the belief,  ie it is true whether you believe or not,   your bullshit?

(June 13, 2023 at 3:32 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: I said all morality is relative. God's standard Identified as "righteousness" is not relative. God's righteousness is fixed. Making Morality Man's societal standard or Man's version of righteousness which allows for or incorporates what man has deemed as minor sin.

If all morality is relative - then whatever gods morality is, would be relative.  This is tautologically true.  If, otoh, you believe that gods morality is not relative...then you cannot believe that all morality is relative.

One way or another, you've misspoken.

Quote:Any 'objective' moral standard that is not God's righteousness is just another form of moral relativism.

I think you're going to have alot of trouble demonstrating that claim.  

Quote:as the inherently good or bad deeds that underline what makes object moralism 'objective' is still based on what society defines as right and or wrong.

If the good and bad making properties of a moral system are the declarations of society, then we are discussing a fundamentally relativistic society.

Quote:The primary difference is the points in objective morality are adopted generationally. Sometimes having around for several generations. Like murder, or rape.. but even then these lines get blurred from time to time.

If the good and bad making properties are the traditions of a society, then we are discussing a fundamentally relativistic society.  

In contrast..in any objective moral system, the good and bad making properties of x - must be factual properties of x.  Not properties of a given subjects society or tradition.  I'll give you three claims, see if you can spot the objective one?

1.  It's bad to punch people in the face because we never have before.
2.  It's bad to punch people in the face because our government says so.
3.  It's bad to punch people in the face because punching people in the face causes harm.

Quote:This 'christian over lap' is a perfect example of generational/object morality as it is a diluted form of God's righteous standard. Which is eroding over time. What would never been allowed two generations back is now the social norm. Which is where my question to you came in, to determine if your morality was objective or relative. and if objective where that line is.

Christians have been marrying children for many more than just two generations.  There's nothing to determine.  I've told you multiple time that I'm a moral realist.  Other posters have reminded you of this basic fact.  

(June 13, 2023 at 3:36 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: Don't forget Human demon hybrids/demi-gods.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

(June 13, 2023 at 4:08 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: again, "K/F" aside, ( you are still arguing irrelevant details) I'm asking what tells you this or any other morally objectionable act is to be considered evil behavior?

The facts of whatever matter x.  It really is that simple.

Quote:I contend objective morality is just generational form of relative morality. IE, it is wrong because your father told you it was wrong, and His father before him and so on back till at one point it for whatever reason it wasn't. 

If the good and bad making properties are daddy declarations - that would fall somewhere between relativism and subjectivism.  Neither of those two is objectivism.

Quote:I am also pointing out without God as a point or foundation to your moral/Righteous objectivity, if you lived in a time where "K/F" was not generationally prohibited there would be nothing to stop you from indulging in this sin or any other.

I find that I mostly don't need to be stopped from doing bad shit.  Our experiences may be different.  The things god says or the things people say about god aren't only unnecessary to objective moral systems - they're disqualifying to objective moral systems.

(June 13, 2023 at 3:48 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What about marsupials? Is it your contention that pregnant koalas swam across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, gave birth, then swam home? Did God instruct Noah on the construction of marsupial pouches? Bear in mind that a joey stays in its mother’s pouch for six to seven months, which is hard to reconcile with five months on the ark.

Also, assuming they didn’t drown while swimming eight thousand miles, how did the koalas eat during the trip? Koalas feed primarily on eucalyptus leaves, which are famous for not growing in the middle of the ocean.

Boru

Two things I personally believe the ark story happened further back than what most people understand. far enough back that the animals on the ark may not be recognized today. Which means Noah did not need to have today's zoological catalog on board. but rather some of the ancestors to what we have today. so instead of opossums and Koalas maybe all Noah needed was whatever their common ancestor was.

Koalas and wombats diverged from their common ancestor roughly 40 MYA. Are you suggesting that humans with boat building skills are older than that?

Boru

(June 13, 2023 at 6:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 3:48 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: Two things I personally believe the ark story happened further back than what most people understand. far enough back that the animals on the ark may not be recognized today. Which means Noah did not need to have today's zoological catalog on board. but rather some of the ancestors to what we have today. so instead of opossums and Koalas maybe all Noah needed was whatever their common ancestor was.

Koalas and wombats diverged from their common ancestor roughly 40 MYA. Are you suggesting that humans with boat building skills are older than that?

Boru

Forgive him, his ancestorS diverged  from wombats much less than 40 MYA.

(June 13, 2023 at 3:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: All these baby animals spending 40 days and 40 nights on a boat.  Were they milking Mrs. Noah for nourishment?  Was Noah chewing up food and regurgitating it for the animals that eat like that?  

Or is this one of those magic dust sorta things where god sprinkles everything and it's all good...'cause he's powerful like that?

Has to be magic dust.

My father (who was a veterinarian) and I discussed this story at length.  It's a huge part of what stopped his belief, the utter impossibility of it.

And.....let's just put this out there.  If god was/is able to do this fancy schmancy magical stuff, why doesn't he do it now?  If he can start a flood, it follows that he can also stop one.  Same with all the other catastrophic weather events.

FYI, it only rained for 40 days. 

They drifted for 300ish days. 


Makes it more believable, huh?

(June 13, 2023 at 7:50 pm)h4ym4n Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 3:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: All these baby animals spending 40 days and 40 nights on a boat.  Were they milking Mrs. Noah for nourishment?  Was Noah chewing up food and regurgitating it for the animals that eat like that?  

Or is this one of those magic dust sorta things where god sprinkles everything and it's all good...'cause he's powerful like that?

Has to be magic dust.

My father (who was a veterinarian) and I discussed this story at length.  It's a huge part of what stopped his belief, the utter impossibility of it.

And.....let's just put this out there.  If god was/is able to do this fancy schmancy magical stuff, why doesn't he do it now?  If he can start a flood, it follows that he can also stop one.  Same with all the other catastrophic weather events.

FYI, it only rained for 40 days. 

They drifted for 300ish days. 


Makes it more believable, huh?

Indeed

(June 13, 2023 at 4:35 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 4:28 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:  
As previously stated they would need a whole lot of dairy animals.

If all the animals are babies, even the dairy animals aren't yet lactating.
[/quote]

Then all the animals are not babies. Genesis 6 the initial charge from God to Moses was to load up the animals that were sent and bring food for them. IF they are all babies then the food would be milk, which comes from lactating animals.