(August 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm)snowtracks Wrote:(August 17, 2014 at 7:54 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: If the flood was restricted to a relatively small area wouldn't that make the entire point of the story pointless?it was a universal flood in respect to humanity, not physical location. the bipedal primates originating out-of-Africa, Europe, Asia are not included since they weren't capable of moral derogations.
Love it. You basically said "It was a universal flood, except it wasn't".
I am compelled to share something with you. Biblical literalists that make shit up by reading additional fiction into the story in order to reconcile the absurd with reality create an updated version even more absurd than the original. What is it about literalists, such as yourself, that make it impossible to accept Biblical tales as allegory that could be employed as reasonable tools for moral education?
Let's stay with the deluge. The most simple way for me to condense the story is to say, "actions have consequences". God in the story can represent the state, local law enforcement, head of household, a classroom teacher, etc. Straying from established behavioral norms in any particular situation will lead to consequences doled out by a recognized authority. This is a very simplistic view. The story can be analyzed and quickly lead to a discussion regarding justice and the punishment of the innocent.
Atheist and theists can have a fruitful discussion regarding Biblical teachings, but infallibilists immediately relegate themselves to the children's table at a large family dinner.