The reason why many Christians never peepared for the hurricane-driven flooding of 2017. Reporters asked people why they were staying, and the people said, "god promised us he would never give us another flood".

I feel sorry for people that cannot think clearly due to an accident of Nature (i.e., congenital, by a birthing accident, genes, whatever). It may sound cruel, but I do not feel sorry for people that Can Think, but instead Choose Not To Think.

Like using water to baptize.


On the other hand, one hopes that Mr. Crockett has a better knowledge of hsitory that he does of science.

Is that you opinion?

And that opinion is very widely shared.

One source, of many:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/07/17/what-does-water-represent-in-the-bible-a-christian-study/

The flood mythology in the bible is pretty elaborate detailing exactly who and what was worthy of being saved from genocide, how human lifespans were changed, mythical creatures that existed before the flood, and dimensions of the ark just to name a few.

The idea that all of this wasn’t intended by the original authors to be taken literally is no more believable than the actual story itself. Your opinion, which you dishonestly tried to pass off as fact is just less honest than the literal interpretation.

Now I understand.

Otherwise it seems more than a bit silly to explain to you that it doesn't take "special insight" to derive intent from the written word, just basic literacy.

Not only are you claiming "special" insight, you are pretending your "special" insight is a matter of historical fact and is widely accepted with literally thousands of years of nobody agreeing with you until heresy laws could no longer shield the masses from reality. Seems more than just a bit "special" to me, but I'm sure you think everyone else just doesn't understand what is so clear to you.

People in the US argue over the original intent of things written 200 years ago. Are they all sub-literate?

But you seem quite certain that you know the sole intent of writers who wrote thousands of years ago. And anyone who disagrees with you is clearly lacking in understanding. The very definition of a fundamentalist.

Ironic.

I'm not the one who is claiming my non-literal interpretation is a matter of historical fact. That would be you.

I'm not the one who is claiming the intent of the original authors is "widely shared". That would be you. Repeatedly no less.

I'm not claiming anyone else is "lacking in understanding". That would be your typical canned response you use when anyone else calls bullshit on your assertions.

So if you now want to project any of that intellectual bankruptcy on me, be my guest but it just isn't that hard to prove where that nonsense is originating.

I'm not claiming to know and I really don't care what the original intent was. All I can say is your interpretation doesn't even begin to pass the smell test regardless of how many fallacies you throw at it.

While simultaneously trying to argue someone else meant something other than exactly what they said.

Classic!

Your own words defeated you, not me.

Which is the epitome of strawman bullshit.

My claim was the "metaphorical" interpretation you assert as allegedly "widely accepted" just isn't believable. I get that you can only think in terms of absolutes, but believe it or not calling bullshit on someone does not require an alternate conclusion. You know, kinda like when you pretend atheists must have belief.

Really.

Which is decidedly your gift.

Can you also put the gif(t) in the first line?

You were telling me what I wrote wasn’t what I wrote. Now you’re just back to being a buzzkill.

But everybody agrees the Constitution was intended literally.

Witness the debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Does anybody think "right to bear arms," is actually a pun and may refer to the custom of carrying ursine appendages? But 3,000 years from now, when perhaps weapons have become barbarous relics of the past, perhaps some clever interpreter will be unable to accept that his ancestors actually believed violence was a good way to settle disputes. So he may come up some nicer interpretation, and he might even have some contemporaries who applaud his cleverness and agree that yes, the Constitution is and always was just a metaphor.

The Flood story is quite detailed and does not appear to have been meant to be metaphorical. It was told as the act of an angry deity who was displeased with its imperfect creation. So, the malevolent creator decided to simply destroy the humans, save one family. Cleansing? Well, in the sense of racial or species cleansing, perhaps. Offend the deity and it will simply kill you.

It's not a metaphor for some sort of refreshing bath, dear. It is a metaphor for petty retribution by the deity and is meant as a cautionary tale, not a metaphor for baptism or any other cleansing ritual.

You have stretched credulity beyond its breaking point with this. And so have all of the apologists who have tried to use this argument to disguise their vengeful and petty deity.

I understand.

Why is that a bad thing for others, but A-OK for you to do?

Even though for virtually all of the last two thousand years, a metaphorical interpretation gained you and your books an invitation to the town BBQ.

MineralMan *also* gave his opinion, yet you attacked him with your stale old pathetic "decider" routine.

It's nice to see you've laid off your "choir" bit - maybe the criticism of you dehumanizing others finally sunk in a bit. But you need to drop ALL your hypocritical and nasty attacks to begin to be taken seriously.

Genesis goes to great lengths to describe the flood myth. The manifest is listed, dimensions of the ark are given, timelines are provided, extent and scope of the flood is detailed. So why go to all that trouble of providing such details of a literal flood when it was all just a metaphor for a foot washing? Neither you nor your source you allege agrees with you have an explanation. Very telling that.

A reasonable reader of the threads that you smear and attack everyone who offers an opinion different than yours WILL arrive at one conclusion.

Amazing.

Which is the opposite of your unreasonable and poorly supported opinion. Not sure if you want to mark that up as anything other than a magnificent faceplant.

But you knew that.

It's about your endless hypocritical attacks - deciding for yourself what not only your religion is, but everyone else's (or lack thereof). You define Islam for Muslims. You define atheism for atheists. When cornered, you coyly reply that you've merely given your opinion. But when others offer their opinion, you sneer and call them a "decider."

Your behavior is clear to all.

Perhaps you should behave more like a Christian... but then again, that could be why you behave the way you do.

I'm not bad at that, by the way. It was my specialty for quite some time, you know, analyzing writings.

So, rather than defining, I'm describing and then interpreting. Since none of us can ask the authors, that's the tool we have to use - analysis.

for spiritual cleansing is a very common one in the Bible.


And I did refer to this as my opinion, as well.

You are in that camp, so show us your supporting links.

The flood is a metaphor for punishment for evildoing, if it's a metaphor for anything. If you do wrong, you risk being killed by an angry deity. A lot of deities are like that. It's intentional, see. Since scriptures are cultures' way of codifying rules, the punishment part is a natural. They're saying:

"Look what happens when you violate "God's" laws. Screw up and god gets angry and kills you, along with everyone else, if things are bad enough."

It's not a "cleansing" metaphor, unless you're talking about something like "racial cleansing."

But, please feel free to present your supporting analysts' arguments. I'll look forward to re-analyzing them.

Perhaps you missed that one.

don't really count, see. Surely you have some others from prominent theologians, right?

You now decide what counts?


You do, for yourself.

How could I control the dialog? I'm only a minor part of this lengthy discussion. How many times does your screen name appear, I wonder? By my quick count, it appears 22 times. And you did not even start the thread. Who is trying to control the dialog, after all? "He who has eyes to see, let him see."

There are also bitter waters mentioned. How do you tell which kind of water is meant, except by context?

which substantially predates it. It's a derivative work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

Ea leaks the secret plan
Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a secret story that begins in the old city of Shuruppak on the banks of the Euphrates River.
The "great gods" Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea were sworn to secrecy about their plan to cause the flood.
But the god Ea (Sumerian god Enki) repeated the plan to Utnapishtim through a reed wall in a reed house.
Ea commanded Utnapishtim to demolish his house and build a boat, regardless of the cost, to keep living beings alive.
The boat must have equal dimensions with corresponding width and length and be covered over like Apsu boats.
Utnapishtim promised to do what Ea commanded.
He asked Ea what he should say to the city elders and the population.
Ea tells him to say that Enlil has rejected him and he can no longer reside in the city or set foot in Enlil's territory.
He should also say that he will go down to the Apsu "to live with my lord Ea".
Note: 'Apsu' can refer to a fresh water marsh near the temple of Ea/Enki at the city of Eridu.[9]
Ea will provide abundant rain, a profusion of fowl and fish, and a wealthy harvest of wheat and bread.

Building and launching the boat
Carpenters, reed workers, and other people assembled one morning.
[missing lines]
Five days later, Utnapishtim laid out the exterior walls of the boat of 120 cubits.
The sides of the superstructure had equal lengths of 120 cubits. He also made a drawing of the interior structure.
The boat had six decks [?] divided into seven and nine compartments.
Water plugs were driven into the middle part.
Punting poles and other necessary things were laid in.
Three times 3,600 units of raw bitumen were melted in a kiln and three times 3,600 units of oil were used in addition to two times 3,600 units of oil that were stored in the boat.
Oxen and sheep were slaughtered and ale, beer, oil, and wine were distributed to the workmen, like at a new year's festival.
When the boat was finished, the launching was very difficult. A runway of poles was used to slide the boat into the water.
Two-thirds of the boat was in the water.
Utnapishtim loaded his silver and gold into the boat.
He loaded "all the living beings that I had."
His relatives and craftsmen, and "all the beasts and animals of the field" boarded the boat.
The time arrived, as stated by the god Shamash, to seal the entry door.

The storm
Early in the morning at dawn a black cloud arose from the horizon.
The weather was frightful.
Utnapishtim boarded the boat and entrusted the boat and its contents to his boatmaster Puzurammurri who sealed the entry.
The thunder god Adad rumbled in the cloud and storm gods Shullar and Hanish went over mountains and land.
Erragal pulled out the mooring poles and the dikes overflowed.
The Annunnaki gods lit up the land with their lightning.
There was stunned shock at Adad's deeds which turned everything to blackness. The land was shattered like a pot.
All day long the south wind blew rapidly and the water overwhelmed the people like an attack.
No one could see his fellows. They could not recognize each other in the torrent.
The gods were frightened by the flood, and retreated up to the Anu heaven. They cowered like dogs lying by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth.
The Mistress of the gods wailed that the old days had turned to clay because "I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods, ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people who fill the sea like fish."
The other gods were weeping with her and sat sobbing with grief, their lips burning, parched with thirst.
The flood and wind lasted six days and six nights, flattening the land.
On the seventh day, the storm was pounding [intermittently?] like a woman in labor.

Calm after the storm
The sea calmed and the whirlwind and flood stopped. All day long there was quiet. All humans had turned to clay.
The terrain was as flat as a roof top. Utnapishtim opened a window and felt fresh air on his face.
He fell to his knees and sat weeping, tears streaming down his face. He looked for coastlines at the horizon and saw a region of land.
The boat lodged firmly on mount Nimush which held the boat for several days, allowing no swaying.
On the seventh day he released a dove which flew away, but came back to him. He released a swallow, but it also came back to him.
He released a raven which was able to eat and scratch, and did not circle back to the boat.
He then sent his livestock out in various directions.

The sacrifice
He sacrificed a sheep and offered incense at a mountainous ziggurat where he placed 14 sacrificial vessels and poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle into the fire.
The gods smelled the sweet odor of the sacrificial animal and gathered like flies over the sacrifice.
Then the great goddess arrived, lifted up her flies (beads), and said
"Ye gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli [amulet] around my neck, I shall be mindful of these days and never forget them! The gods may come to the sacrificial offering. But Enlil may not come, because he brought about the flood and annihilated my people without considering [the consequences]."
When Enlil arrived, he saw the boat and became furious at the Igigi gods. He said "Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation!"
Ninurta spoke to Enlil saying "Who else but Ea could do such a thing? It is Ea who knew all of our plans."
Ea spoke to Enlil saying "It was you, the Sage of the Gods. How could you bring about a flood without consideration?"
Ea then accuses Enlil of sending a disproportionate punishment, and reminds him of the need for compassion.
Ea denies leaking the god's secret plan to Atrahasis (= Utnapishtim), admitting only sending him a dream and deflecting Enlil's attention to the flood hero.

The flood hero and his wife are granted immortality and transported far away
He then boards a boat and grasping Utnapishtim's hand, helps him and his wife aboard where they kneel. Standing between Utnapishtim and his wife, he touches their foreheads and blesses them. "Formerly Utnapishtim was a human being, but now he and his wife have become gods like us. Let Utnapishtim reside far away, at the mouth of the rivers."
Utnapishtim and his wife are transported and settled at the "mouth of the rivers".

Floods as divine retribution for wickedness was a reoccurring theme well before Genesis was authored. It wasn’t as if they invented the story. They just repeated the story changing up some of the details to make it appear genuine.

The epic of Gilgamesh flood story isn't even the earliest version

the destructive, genocidal flood. Not Jesus washing peoples feet.


We'll wait.......

Nothing about Noah or floods.

Your interpretation is like saying sacramental candles represent forest fires.

The metaphor. So my comment is appropriate, and well known and accepted in the faith community.



Now, as to candles, let us consider:


Light/Jesus/the Creator? Yes, probably a comment on forest fires.

this “cleansing” was accomplished by your vile god slaughtering everything by drowning them, right?

Another Biblical literalist?

Your vile gods, angry at their fucked up creation, cleanse their world by drowning everything. We all agree this never happened. You think there is some good news in this fairy tale.

Rather, we are arguing that it is a metaphor for an angry genocidal God. There are place in the Bible that depict a loving God. This isn't one of them.

Just ask any fundagelical: the xtian bible must be taken *literally*. Literally implies the non-existence of metaphors.

Either there are no metaphors in the bible or there are.

If there are metaphors, then the xtian bible cannot be taken literally. Since it's just a poorly-written book of fiction, we can safely ignore it.

If there are no metaphors, the big potato promised that it would never flood again and it did, so the big potato lied.

Thus, either way in this palaver, you have no further argument.

First, you define all Christians as Biblical literalists.

Second, look at the link in my previous reply, #3, and start with that.

Water as a symbol for cleansing is everywhere in the Bible. The flood is a dramatic, large scale, illustration of that symbol. Baptim is a small scale illustration.

I would not be so arrogant...

He just wants to claim the bible is metaphorical when it’s demonstrably false and literal when it’s convenient.

And stated that others share that opinion.

As to my arrogance, that is another matter.

And you read the entire thread, and in context.

Try again.

If you want your opinion to be taken as an opinion replacing "is" with 'I think' or 'I believe' or 'I understand' IS helpful and decidedly less duplicitous.

Just sayin'

I said that water is a metaphor. If I had stated that it was the metaphor, meaning the only reasonable metaphor, or even stronger, the only metaphor, I would agree with you.

Floodwater is muddy and carries disease. Floods don't clean anything. They leave an awful mess and then you have to clean up afterward.

Water is wet.

Makes perfect sense.

And he's the decider. Maybe it's just his opinion, but you need to keep in mind that his opinion is better than everyone else's.

It's that anything may be justified by calling it "opinion." Is Trump the world's greatest genius? Many people say he is. It's just a matter of opinion.

First, that’s not what he said.

Second, you trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

"First, you define all Christians as Biblical literalists."
No, I did not. That is a lie. I don't profile Christians. I don't profile anyone.

"Second, look at the link in my previous reply, #3, and start with that."
I am not going to argue with you. Your "bible" is fiction. As I am science-based, i.e., fact-based, not fiction-based, I safely ignore it. And if I ever wanted to read fiction, there are plenty of books to read besides some 2000-year out of date nonsense about selling my daughter into slavery or stoning my son for not behaving.

"Water as a symbol for cleansing is everywhere in the Bible. The flood is a dramatic, large scale, illustration of that symbol. Baptim is a small scale illustration."
More BS. I call BS on your entire argument. Try selling that argument in Houston *now*. You think the average Houstonian feels "clean", Mr. Sensitive? Or, go argue with the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. It hears more of your arguments than I do.

Rising sea levels are a result of climate change cause by man-made emissions, so God is not flooding the world again, man is.