So her “logic” (and I’m stretching that word to the breaking point) is that God said he wouldn’t destroy the world again with a global flood. Let’s say we accept that as fact: God will not destroy the world via a global flood.
The problem is that God isn’t destroying the world, man is. And man isn’t destroying the world via a giant flood. He’s destroying it by changing the global climate to the point that he can’t keep up. (To be technical, man is destroying his ability to survive in the world, not the world itself. The Earth would be here even if we decided to burn more fossil fuels.)
So even if we accept Genesis 8 as a valid “argument” (more word stretching), it doesn’t apply. Now, if scientists start saying that a deity plans on instituting a global flood via 40 days and nights of rain, then I’ll accept Genesis 8 as a counter-argument.
I always wonder how this works. Do we have free will, or does everything we do follow God’s plan? If it’s the former, then God is clearly either not all-powerful or not entirely benevolent, since there are many ways we make things worse for our fellow humans and other life on this planet. If it’s the latter, then God is directly responsible for everything bad that happens as well as the good, nothing else really matters.
Christianity has major figures who have argued for one or the other. Fundies these days seem to pick whichever one suits them for the current argument.
So her “logic” (and I’m stretching that word to the breaking point) is that God said he wouldn’t destroy the world again with a global flood. Let’s say we accept that as fact: God will not destroy the world via a global flood.
The problem is that God isn’t destroying the world, man is. And man isn’t destroying the world via a giant flood. He’s destroying it by changing the global climate to the point that he can’t keep up. (To be technical, man is destroying his ability to survive in the world, not the world itself. The Earth would be here even if we decided to burn more fossil fuels.)
So even if we accept Genesis 8 as a valid “argument” (more word stretching), it doesn’t apply. Now, if scientists start saying that a deity plans on instituting a global flood via 40 days and nights of rain, then I’ll accept Genesis 8 as a counter-argument.
I’m pretty sure God promised to next destroy the world with fire instead. And that’s what we’re seeing. So even her crazy opinion is wrong.
I always wonder how this works. Do we have free will, or does everything we do follow God’s plan? If it’s the former, then God is clearly either not all-powerful or not entirely benevolent, since there are many ways we make things worse for our fellow humans and other life on this planet. If it’s the latter, then God is directly responsible for everything bad that happens as well as the good, nothing else really matters.
Christianity has major figures who have argued for one or the other. Fundies these days seem to pick whichever one suits them for the current argument.
You can unravel her doublespeak by realizing that god is a creation of man, and therefore in her mind man is god and can do no wrong.
Mental gymnastics.
That’s not how you debate a topic. You have to use the shared medium of discussion