Zone1 If God Truly Loves Us Then Why Did He Cause The Great Flood?

"There was no global flood" but for some reason a global flood is carved in human civilization in every continent...no less than the human memory of the ice age.

The attempt to discredit the Bible form historic perspective
is at this point an entire religious dogma in itself.
The Dogon in Africa go further and tell us exactly where the Sky visitors came from .
They point to the Sirius binary star system which nobody could see until high powered telescopes became available .

That completelty wrecks all of the Abrahamic religions -- Yours plus Cult Christianity and Cult Islam .
 
Stories grow up around local floods all the time. Geology doesn't lie . I never figured you for a literalist.

Those stories tell of global floods, indeed geology doesn't lie about the ice age.

Naturally associate with Rambam's rationalism, it's only your one track
Islamist mind that prevents you from seeing context, and allegory,
as exclusive to the literally meaning. In Jewish school of thought,
allegory aren't imaginations contradicting the literal text.

It's apparent who among us is the dogmatic literalist,
always to deny the historicity of events when
discussing them as moral questions.
 
The Dogon in Africa go further and tell us exactly where the Sky visitors came from .
They point to the Sirius binary star system which nobody could see until high powered telescopes became available .

That completelty wrecks all of the Abrahamic religions -- Yours plus Cult Christianity and Cult Islam .

Notice how predictably are you both triggered,
like you refuse or simply can't comprehend
it isn't relevant to the moral questions.

How do you measure "further" in this?
Because it's not "Abrahamic religions"
you have a problem with, but only
the original Abrahamic tradition.
 
Last edited:
surada claims both there was no flood, and that each civilization
had their own local interpretation, but at the same time similar
in description so it was all "borrowed" from a single source...

Why the urge among the nations to "borrow" such a thing?

How is the historicity of an even relevant to its influence
on the collective culture of human civilization,
and its universally moral questions?
 
surada claims both there was no flood, and that each civilization
had their own local interpretation, but at the same time similar
in description so it was all "borrowed" from a single source...

Why the urge among the nations to "borrow" such a thing?

How is the historicity of an even relevant to its influence
on the collective culture of human civilization,
and its universally moral questions?
Reminds me of the debate about dolls--and which culture had the first doll, from which all others "borrowed". Then someone asked, "Since it all cultures mothers had babies, and all children imitate their parents, why would only one child in all the cultures around the world choose to find/create a "baby" (doll) to emulate her mother?

Having a dispute over which was "first" and who "copied" overlooks the fact that all cultures had floods and all cultures had storytellers. Not only that, before the written word, all these stories were oral. Who can ever prove that the first (oral) account came from a specific culture? It seems that all that we do know is that the first written account that survived to our own time came from the Sumerians.
 
God didnt kill innocent babies, but people killed not only innocent babies, but innocent people also. Lucifer loves those who kill others.

the parable is misunderstood - they, the heavens returned early before all that were left were evil to allow the few that were not to survive, giving humanity a second chance ...

oddly that second chance was reversed when the jews crucified the heavenly exemplar, jesus.
 
surada claims both there was no flood, and that each civilization
had their own local interpretation, but at the same time similar
in description so it was all "borrowed" from a single source...

Why the urge among the nations to "borrow" such a thing?

How is the historicity of an even relevant to its influence
on the collective culture of human civilization,
and its universally moral questions?
The Euphrates river Basin flooded frequently..150 miles wide 350 miles to the south. It would have seemed like their whole world.
 
Reminds me of the debate about dolls--and which culture had the first doll, from which all others "borrowed". Then someone asked, "Since it all cultures mothers had babies, and all children imitate their parents, why would only one child in all the cultures around the world choose to find/create a "baby" (doll) to emulate her mother?

Having a dispute over which was "first" and who "copied" overlooks the fact that all cultures had floods and all cultures had storytellers. Not only that, before the written word, all these stories were oral. Who can ever prove that the first (oral) account came from a specific culture? It seems that all that we do know is that the first written account that survived to our own time came from the Sumerians.
The Sumarians had a written language a thousand years before Abraham.
 
surada claims both there was no flood, and that each civilization
had their own local interpretation, but at the same time similar
in description so it was all "borrowed" from a single source...

Why the urge among the nations to "borrow" such a thing?

How is the historicity of an even relevant to its influence
on the collective culture of human civilization,
and its universally moral questions?

Not interpretation.. They all had local floods over the years and had stories about them.
 
The Euphrates river Basin flooded frequently..150 miles wide 350 miles to the south. It would have seemed like their whole world.

Try to follow up,
not discussing a river flood.

Did Indians know about the Euphrates?

 
Try to follow up,
not discussing a river flood.

Did Indians know about the Euphrates?

Lol. Of course it was a river flood.
 
There were lots of catastrophic floods 12,000 to 18,000 years ago.

The Bible flood was in 2900 bc.
 
Short of it is that your interpretation of the:

"God of Judeo-Christian-Islam Genesis is "fiction" and distortions of actual truth to be used as a population control device so we don't attain knowledge and power to supplant our owners and overlords."

is an allegory and simplification of far more complex global events,
and their influence on concepts of a divine order in history.


It's not that you disagree, aliens is just an allegory
of how you perceive the same archetypes
as G-d intended for you to perceive the
greater "cosmic fate" through figures
that can fit your imagination.

See what I did there?
Allegory is an easy excuse,

to read anything into any communication.
You need to see/read my post #16 of this thread to get better context and understanding of my position on this subject.
I hesitate to copy-paste a repeat(spam).
 

Forum List

Back
Top