Does Genesis Teach a Local Flood? (page 4)

larc

baja,

I can't help, but your plight reminded me of a song I learned as a boy:

There once was a lady named Hanna
Got caught in a flood in Montana
She floated away
Her sister they say,
Accompanyed her on the piana

Nathan Natas

Francois, boy you brought back some memories!!

...you couldn't drive a sewing needle up your asshole with a sledgehammer.

Back at Bethel, on Saturday nights, usually, a bunch of us would get together with some homemade Bethel Beer - we had two kinds - Bethel Light and Bethel New Light - and we'd get out the sewing needles and sledgehammers and get to partying!

GOD, did that HURT!

But it was good clean fun and it built CHARACTER!

...I have to pause now to wipe a little tear from my eye...

JanH

Francois,

Jan, Jan, Jan. You're so predictable.
How is there any difference between your approach/reaction to a discussion and that of the JWs?

The difference is that I stick to facts, that I actually know something about the topic I write about, that I do not resort to personal insults to avoid dealing with facts.

One of us shares these similarities with the JWs, and the other one ain't you.

You must agree with every jot and tittle of the JWs latest understanding or be insulted, invalidated, and called an apostate.
You also must agree with every jot and tittle of the latest viewpoint and outlook of JanH, or be insulted, invalidated, and called anti-intellectual. What's the difference? None.

Sometimes the game, so popular among exJWs, of equating all opponents with the JWs, are taken too far. This is a good example. If you were insulted, it just shows you are too sensitive. You are offended by me calling your posting an example of anti-intellectuallism. Do you even bother to read what you write yourself? Please allow me to remind you:

One approach is of the scholarly type, attempting to nail down various corners of the flood story with the left brain, with logic, facts, reason, all in the service of incontrovertible findings - sort of like proving a theorem in geometry. . . . Now I know this story won't appeal too much to the left-brain types. Too simple. Makes too much sense. Doesn't require partial differential equations to solve.

This is the very definition of anti-intellectualism, Francois. You assert that by merely thinking about a topic, without doing such "left-brain" stuff like investigating facts, you are better off than the scholarly approach, which you ridicule by equating it to "solving differential equations". If you don't like being called anti-intellectual, just don't be one.

What is sad is that you dodged a chance to actually deal with my arguments and deal with the facts. Instead you resorted to a classic ad hominem by attacking me as a person, even resorting to the last resort of the desperate exJW, saying I am essentially a JW myself. Childish, Francois, but only insulting to your own intellect or lack thereof.

I did provide you with an actual argument (know what that is?), referring to the technology needed to build a suitable seafaring vessel. You ignored it completely. Or was it this argument you tried to brush aside with the new age "catch all" counter argument, that of accusing me of "reductionism"? You are thoroughly pathetic, Francois. Your long tirade about my personal problems can safely be attributed to what is called "projection". But perhaps that word was too intellectual for you?

I have totally lost whatever respect I had for you.

Plonk!

- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

ozziepost

G'day JanH,

A thought-provoking thread. Thanks for your post.

Even aussies can be appreciative!

Cheers,
Ozzie

"A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies"
ALFRED, LORD TENNYSON, The Grandmother

stevieb1

I used to accept the Global Flood hypothesis (complete with vapour canopy as taught by the WTS) but quite recently I have done some extensive research on the subject, and it has changed my viewpoint. To be brief I believe that the Bible teaches that the Noachian Flood was indeed universal but not global. It wiped out everyone then alive excepting Noah and his family, as people at that time lived along the Mesopotamian basin.

For some quite good audio discussions on the subject of Global vs Local Flood, Geology and Canopy Theories see www.reasons.org then click on RTB Radio and check the archives for a 7-pt examination of the Flood story.

Seeker

It wiped out everyone then alive excepting Noah and his family, as people at that time lived along the Mesopotamian basin.

Except for the Chinese.

jelly

Those pesky Chinese……

Anyway, I think that Genesis, and the entire Hebrew library, make more sense when you look at them as a set of myths to convey a message. I believe there may have been some kind of flood (local) that was used as a back drop for the story of Noah, but the facts are not relevant, the theme of the story is. Now we can argue about the theme of the myth of Noah for days with people drawing what ever conclusion from it that fits their own set of prejudices.

Fundamentalists amaze me; they refuse to acknowledge that the bible contains myths. This is even more astounding when you look at the example of Jesus, a man that continually used metaphor to prove his point. My point is that if Jesus was the perfect example of God (theoretically the author of the bible) and used metaphor to deliver his message, isn’t it logical that God would also use metaphor to deliver his message.

While I am rambling on, another thing I have noticed is the similarities between people that think they have all the answers, fundamentalist and rabid (not all) atheist. Fundies believe that the whole bible must be factual correct or no God; foaming at the mouth atheists feel that there is no god because the bible is not factually correct. Really these are two groups I can’t stand. Every thing must be black or white, no grey, no maybe, no middle ground; even in matters of opinion. I see very little difference between them as people.

Jelly

Reply to objections before they are aired:

I am not addressing all atheist or religionist; just one class of each. I am aware some people become atheist for reasons other than I have listed; reasons I find more valid. Likewise, I am not condemning all Christians; just the radical subset of the group. To me fundies/rabid atheist are indistinguishable.

Does Genesis Teach a Local Flood?