Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

Thank you. What I was asking for was a reference in the text describing this flood which makes it clear it was a local, rather than global, event - not examples of similar language employed elsewhere in the book in a hyperbolic sense. I don't care what Caesar said; he wasn't there at the flood nor was he describing it. Clearly the flood narrative in context is quite unambiguous on the point of its being worldwide and can't in all conscience be interpreted otherwise.

context is the key: from the perspective of the authors and audience, the 'world' meant people, the land meant the ground under the feet stretching from horizon to horizon. from the text before the 1st day the earth's surface was completely covered with water. later reads after the mountains rose and the valleys sank down, a boundary was established and the waters would never again return to cover them. when the apostle peter later comment on the genesis flood he said that by the waters of that time were a judgment that came from God upon all the ungodly (reprobation plagued the pre-flood society - reprobates according to peter not only do evil, the also cheer on others to do evil, and enjoy recruiting others to live as they do). that was the extent of it. there are biblical geographical makers that place the flood in the persian gulf, mesopotamia area which is near the location of eden.

[Esquilax]

context is the key: from the perspective of the authors and audience, the 'world' meant people, the land meant the ground under the feet stretching from horizon to horizon. from the text before the 1st day the earth's surface was completely covered with water. later reads after the mountains rose and the valleys sank down, a boundary was established and the waters would never again return to cover them. when the apostle peter later comment on the genesis flood he said that by the waters of that time were a judgment that came from God upon all the ungodly (reprobation plagued the pre-flood society - reprobates according to peter not only do evil, the also cheer on others to do evil, and enjoy recruiting others to live as they do). that was the extent of it. there are biblical geographical makers that place the flood in the persian gulf, mesopotamia area which is near the location of eden.

What was it you were saying earlier about Dawkins? Oh, yes...

" dawkins had his chance, one doesn't get the luxury of going back to the office and backtracking and saying this is what was meant."

By that logic, doesn't god also get the one chance, and you can't clarify now, no matter how willful the misunderstandings being employed? Or is it just people you don't agree with that have to deal with your ridiculous stipulations?

[The Grand Nudger]

there are biblical geographical makers that place the flood in the persian gulf, mesopotamia area which is near the location of eden.

Still never happened. This is what really disturbs me about people who stick to this narrative. They just can't wrap their head around the fact that the deluge never occurred, anywhere. It's not an issue of scale. Sure, a worldwide flood is a little bit more ridiculous than some regional flood that fits the description - but neither are in evidence - because neither are possible. On the one hand you have flying dolphins with lasers....and on the other hand you have flying dolphins.

Lemme ask you this. Why do you need this narrative to be factual? Why? What theology is affected? None. Did christ make a promise - but only so long as there was a flood? No.

Meh, I don't get it. Look, pick any spot you like, wherever you want there to have been some godly flood. We'll grab some surveys, calculate the water carrying capacity of the soil - determine the rate the rain would have needed to fall - the forces involved in that sort of rainfall, the effects of that rain and those forces...and finally we'll be able to tell you exactly what sort of evidence you'd be looking for (hint:cataclysmic destruction on a nearly unimaginable scale). This stuff isn't arcanum - it's just math. We can do it together...like buddies.....it'll be fun.....

[Tonus]

context is the key:

And by "context" I assume you mean "reinterpretation."

[Whateverist]

Lemme ask you this. Why do you need this narrative to be factual? Why? What theology is affected? None. Did christ make a promise - but only so long as there was a flood? No.

This would be such a good question for you to consider, Snowpeas. Look into some of the other possible uses of text beyond conveying facts. Look into your own religion and try to decide what is really central to it. I worry that the way you're using the bible will cause brain rot.

[The Grand Nudger]

It causes bible rot. These stories can actually be pretty awesome - in that they convey a message or an experience the same as any other. It's only when we ignore that value that the narrative is rendered worthless.

Noah was a man who heard a call. A ridiculous call, a call we have no indication that he was capable of addressing. Was he a boatbuilder? A zookeeper? A navigator? No, but he stuck to it, accomplished something unimaginable, suffered for it...and ultimately, triumphed.

Or....it rained really, really hard - except that it didn't.



These folks need to leave their bible stories in the hands of someone who gives a shit, like me. That's a strange thought, isn't it?

[Whateverist]

Maybe you should put some together and publish a non-literal book of bible-wisdom-stories. Perhaps it could be titled "What the Bible is and isn't telling you."

[The Grand Nudger]

I could hardly do it justice. It's been done, exhaustively - by far greater storytellers than I.

[Jackalope]

I could hardly do it justice. It's been done, exhaustively - by far greater storytellers than I.

Not only that, but the audience who would most benefit from it would likely rather burn it than read it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here a good one.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Transfor...0385721242

There's a section in there about what the bible is-and-isn't saying...as part of the larger narrative of the changing landscape of religious traditions. I like this one - because it actually takes the time to explain the practical experience of the cultures that told these evolving narratives, why the narratives made sense - here in the real world- to them. We sometimes forget that it;s only recently that we've separated the magical or spiritual world from the natural one. Such a distinction would be non-sense to the people who conceived of these narratives. Something could happen in fairy land and it would be just as real and corporeal as something that happened here, in our world. That's why the narratives were relevant to begin with.

But.....if you don't take the time to learn this, or if you willfully ignore it in favor of theology, the narratives fall apart, become useless. Instead of discussing a rich collective human experience (which is the narratives birthright) you start bickering like an asshole with people who don't think that a dragon actually convinced a woman to eat cursed fruit. LOL, I actually joined this forum for discussions of the former sort...and ended up settling for the latter. The shit these people think their bible is telling them, honestly, surprises the hell out of me. Sure, I've never been in the fold...but I was literally surrounded by and infused with "the faith" - and I'd never heard the garbage I've seen on these boards - until I joined these boards. Gods been getting smaller and less relevant with every creatard and fundy that happens to fall into my lap here - from my POV.