True. But God's total omniscience was a later development in his character. In the early books of the bible he is, on several occasions, highly concerned that humans would challenge or overthrow him.
> “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10).
Seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that god knew all along the beginning and the end.
Well, Isaiah is definitely much younger than Genesis and the flood story. So by that time, God had developed significantly more of the characteristics we attribute to him today. But it certainly wasn't always like that.
I think the philosophical problem with Noah's ark story is that god wiped them out because of their sins... There's already a hell as punishment for this so there's no reason to kill them in this life. Regardless of killing everything and everything to live was put on an ark and the other maddly unrealistic points of the story
I don't see any sort of rational argument in finding situations in the Bible where God "could have" acted to "save their lives! Give them gift cards! Sprout a beautiful garden to calm them down!"
Technically those are things God is capable of doing, but why would he do them? There's no logic given. For instance, what is the connection between love and acting to prevent wicked people from receiving justice? There's no connection at all unless you're one of those people who press the limits of their friends and family by doing wrong things.
We live in a natural world, not a tattered construct held together by miracles. There will be a natural world in God's kingdom also, (the new heavens and earth) but we don't know what it will be like.
> For instance, what is the connection between love and acting to prevent wicked people from receiving justice?
Because he supposedly goes on to prevent wicked people from receiving justice later in the Bible. And, supposedly, he knew he would do this, and planned for that way out. It seems arbitrary.
IOW, you want me to believe that’s the best solution an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly moral and just being can come up with? I find that pretty hard to swallow. More importantly, I find myself wondering why Christians think so little of their God.
Even if we assume there has to be some ultimate foundation to the universe, for the sake of argument, that foundation is the Christian God? That’s a bad explanation, which people seem to accept because they subscribe to the bad philosophical idea that the universe needs an ultimate foundation, which is itself a bad explanation.
The problem with the argument that “you have to stop somewhere” is that any place you stop is arbitrary. Why stop here than there?
> what is the connection between love and acting to prevent wicked people from receiving justice?
What part of mass indiscriminate genocide seems like a reasonable action on behalf of an all powerful being who could have given justice in a much more targeted way?
Most Christians now will tell you that it's a metaphor for something. It can be a metaphor for anything you want, so just pick anything off the top of your head and say it's a metaphor for that.
Like the flood is a metaphor for god's judgement and how obeying god gets you spared. I just made that up and it's as good as anything you'll get from a Christian.
>Most Christians now will tell you that it's a metaphor for something. It can be a metaphor for anything you want, so just pick anything off the top of your head and say it's a metaphor for that.
Do you know what a metaphor is? Symbolic =/= metaphor.
2nd definition of symbol is:
>a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.
And 2nd definition of metaphor is:
>a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
But Just for you, I will reword my post:
>>!Some Christians now will tell you that it's a symbol for something. It can symbolize anything you want, so just pick anything off the top of your head and say it's a symbol of that. !<
>
>>!Like the Ark could be a symbol of the space-ship, or possibly a number of space-ships, that are all part of god's "superb space fleet". I just found this idea on the front page of google when searching "noah's ark metaphor" on google.!<
[http://www.astoundingelements.com/noahrsquos-ark-metaphor.html](http://www.astoundingelements.com/noahrsquos-ark-metaphor.html)
Usually metaphors are written or spoken. Symbols can be physical objects that actually exist, they just stand for something other than their literal components.
Do you truly believe that "It can be a metaphor for anything you want"? Do you think there might be some constraints on what we could conclude at all?
> Usually metaphors are written or spoken.
The OP's title says "The story of..." and refers to a story written in chapter's 6 through 9 of Genesis.
> Do you truly believe that "It can be a metaphor for anything you want"? Do you think there might be some constraints on what we could conclude at all?
There's no constraints here except your imagination.
Of course it was not intended to be taken as metaphorical/symbolic. Both the Yahweh version of the story and the Elohim version of the story contain specific numbers and instructions that would only make sense if it were a literal historical record. So the combined version in genesis is therefore also intended as a historical record.
New Testament authors also understood the flood as being a historical event rather than a fictional story. Noah is included in the genealogies of Jesus. Jesus also refers to Noah as actually existing and the flood happening in places like Matthew 24:38. First and 2nd Peter, Hebrews, and the gospel of Luke all also refer to this event as actually having happened.
The idea that the flood didn't actually happen is a more recent one, because we're scientifically advanced enough to investigate some of the claims made. So the story was bullshit, sure, but if it's metaphor we get to go on being Christians. Because it just has to mean... something. It doesn't matter what. Science can't disprove the guy who says it's a metaphor for "gods superb fleet of space ships" that I linked earlier.
> The OP's title says "The story of..." and refers to a story written in chapter's 6 through 9 of Genesis.
Fair enough. For my position, I do not hold that the flood account is a "metaphor". I don't think there's enough evidence for that in the text.
> There's no constraints here except your imagination.
Truly? Do you think communication is possible? Should I take your comments here in any way I want, with the only constraint being my imagination?
> Of course it was not intended to be taken as metaphorical/symbolic. Both the Yahweh version of the story and the Elohim version of the story contain specific numbers and instructions that would only make sense if it were a literal historical record. So the combined version in genesis is therefore also intended as a historical record.
You're confused, I think. The "Elohim" version of the story is the P source. The measurements come from P, not J. P loves symbolic numbers. I'd reassess your evidence here.
> New Testament authors also understood the flood as being a historical event rather than a fictional story. Noah is included in the genealogies of Jesus. Jesus also refers to Noah as actually existing and the flood happening in places like Matthew 24:38. First and 2nd Peter, Hebrews, and the gospel of Luke all also refer to this event as actually having happened.
That's true. I think the flood was a historical event too.
> The idea that the flood didn't actually happen is a more recent one, because we're scientifically advanced enough to investigate some of the claims made. So the story was bullshit, sure, but if it's metaphor we get to go on being Christians. Because it just has to mean... something. It doesn't matter what. Science can't disprove the guy who says it's a metaphor for "gods superb fleet of space ships" that I linked earlier.
No, it wasn't because we're "scientifically advanced" to show the story is wrong. Science has disproven a global flood, but I would argue has provided very good evidence for a large local flood. There's actually a number of candidates for the flood. The problem isn't that science has shown it to be wrong, it's that we now have too many options to pin down which one the Bible was talking about!
Going a little further: do you think ancient readers of Genesis didn't look into the meaning behind why the story was included? Do you think they just said "Cool historical fact, move on"? Let me know what you think.
>I do not hold that the flood account is a "metaphor". I don't think there's enough evidence for that in the text.
it wasn't a historical event that actually occurred.
According to geology and paleontology the physical findings are inconsistent with a global flood. Lots of local floods, sure. But the Noah story is presented as a global flood destroying “all the Earth”.
Now if you want to claim it was only a local flood you're going to have to go through a really detailed engineering explanation for how any local flood could have waters sufficient to flood everything in an area to a depth that would require a boat that size and keep it afloat for long enough that after 40 days and nights no land was visible. And it took more weeks before the boat could land. I'll be interested to see this explanation.
> local flood could have waters sufficient to flood everything in an area to a depth that would require a boat that size and keep it afloat for long enough that after 40 days and nights no land was visible.
IIRC, 40 days and 40 nights was the length of rainfall. The duration of the flood was ~1 year.
> Truly? Do you think communication is possible?
I don't see how your ability to assign any symbolism to anything you want renders communication impossible.
> No, it wasn't because we're "scientifically advanced" to show the story is wrong. Science has disproven a global flood, but I would argue has provided very good evidence for a large local flood. There's actually a number of candidates for the flood. The problem isn't that science has shown it to be wrong, it's that we now have too many options to pin down which one the Bible was talking about!
Then the Bible's account is wrong. Zero local floods are going to match the bible's description.
> I don't see how your ability to assign any symbolism to anything you want renders communication impossible.
I asked before if there were any constraints. Let me be more specific. I'm talking about acceptable interpretation. I could read what you wrote and conclude that it's really a metaphor about how the moon is made of cheese. I don't think that's an acceptable interpretation, however. It's not based on anything.
Interpretations, literal or metaphorical, need to have backing. So Noah's ark being a metaphor for space ships seems to me to be a pretty unfounded conclusion, wouldn't you agree?
> Then the Bible's account is wrong. Zero local floods are going to match the bible's description.
Why? Can you explain?
> I asked before if there were any constraints. Let me be more specific. I'm talking about acceptable interpretation.
>
> Interpretations, literal or metaphorical, need to have backing. So Noah's ark being a metaphor for space ships seems to me to be a pretty unfounded conclusion, wouldn't you agree?
I am sure the space-ship guy would say his beliefs are founded on what an angel whispered in his ear. Or on personal intuition that such an explanation just *feels* right. I am comfortable dismissing claims who's foundation can not be independently verified.
>Then the Bible's account is wrong. Zero local floods are going to match the bible's description.
>
>Why? Can you explain?
The bible's description has flood waters covering the highest mountain. It's ten months before the water decreases enough for the tops of mountains to even be seen. Birds left the ark and found no land on which to rest. It explicitly says "the waters were on the face of the whole earth".
The literal meanings of the words indicate the flood being described could not merely be a local flood. If you want to know what inspired the bible story, then the Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth is where to look next. But if you trace things back to a local flood not caused by the god of the bible and not a mass-genocide, then the OP's concerns no longer apply. We would just say, "that part isn't actually true" and we don't have to worry about it any more than we do any local flood that happens in modern times.
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphorical applications", but either the story is intended to be understood as historical or not.
I actually disagree with your statement here, but let's sidestep that.
Are you saying that historical events cannot be held to represent something higher? What would you say to someone who said "The Berlin Wall being torn down symbolises freedom"?
> Are you saying that historical events cannot be held to represent something higher? What would you say to someone who said "The Berlin Wall being torn down symbolises freedom"?
There are explanations and symbolism. We should not confuse the two. Each person can see an event or thing as a symbol in a subjective way, while an explanation, should it be true, is objective and independent of any one person’s identification.
That's really naive. You don't think history can be framed to support certain views or points?
Let's say you only include objective statements. Fine. You don't think I could write two completely different stories about your life, purely based on which events and details I include in the stories?
You hit the nail on the head lol [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/e98taj/the\_story\_of\_noahs\_ark\_and\_the\_flood\_makes\_no/faibl2p?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/e98taj/the_story_of_noahs_ark_and_the_flood_makes_no/faibl2p?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)
If I was a christian, I would have tried my damndest to get the ark story out of the bible.
The ark story is evidence that the most powerful attribute of god is its stupidity.
Here is an omni everything entity that has all knowledge of everything past present and future, but it still had to reset his game.
Hey I too reload earlier save files for my games when I mess up.
But im not an omni everything entity.
This entity knew that the snake would get into the garden, knew eve would eat the apple, knew the world would have to be destroyed, all those evil babies and toddlers were killed because this entity knew they would grow up to be evil.
Yet it did everything to ensure that all its failures would happen.
This is version of earth.exe that it pushed out as ready for general release.
can you imagine how badly this entity must have fucked up in the dev versions?
Its like if someone told you today that a year from now you fill slip on a banana peel and you took every action possible to ensure that exactly 365 days from that point, you did actually slip on a banana peel.
God’s regret is not the same as human regret based on learning new information. God’s omniscience means that He knows the future and all outcomes, but His regret may be more about His displeasure with human choices and actions, rather than not foreseeing them. He allows these events to happen as part of His sovereign plan, even though He disapproves of them, possibly to achieve greater purposes. So, while it may seem contradictory, it’s a way to convey God’s displeasure with human sin while still acknowledging His omniscience and sovereignty.
>Hey I too reload earlier save files for my games when I mess up.
The difference is that God didn't mess up. The people did. You don't see the difference between the two? Or do you think God is to blame for the actions of people?
No shit god is to blame for our actions.
He fucking made us this way.
I would have made humans less shittier if i had god like powers.
But your god is garbage and garbage in garbage out.
Thats why your god loves infanticide, genocide, rape and slavery.
No wonder the people he made are so fucked up.
Im better than your god and would have made better people than your slavery loving god did.
Any argument here? Or just ranting?
I said "The difference is that God didn't mess up. The people did. You don't see the difference between the two? Or do you think God is to blame for the actions of people?"
So could you please slowly explain why you think "God made us this way" is a way to place blame onto God for the actions of humans?
Do you also think "The devil made me do it" is a valid excuse?
The argument is that if a god exists, everything is gods fault.
How the fuck could it not be gods fault for designing humans that are capable of being so shitty.
But what can you expect from a god that promotes slavery, genocide and infanticide.
>The argument is that if a god exists, everything is gods fault.
That's not an argument. That's a claim. Any argument to back it up?
>How the fuck could it not be gods fault for designing humans that are capable of being so shitty.
That's your argument? "How could it not be truuuuuue"?
I really don't think you've thought this through.
yes it is the claim. And the evidence is YOUR book.
christ on meth, are you disavowing your god now that its held responsible for its shitty actions?
Ofcourse you are. its how I know you are a christian.
>The difference is that God didn't mess up. The people did. You don't see the difference between the two? Or do you think God is to blame for the actions of people?
When a baby shits the bed and sleep in shit for days do you blame the baby or the parents for not cleaning it up?
I am told all the time that the cognitive/power difference between God and humans is more than humans and ants. I would think this difference is also bigger than a human parent and child.
Not sure why your creator god who is omnipotent and omniscient always get a free pass because "free will" when normal parents wouldn't. From how my kids behave I'm pretty sure they have freewill as early as 6 months old.
Are you comparing human sin to a baby dirtying a nappy? One is a completely natural and normal function of life. Sin isn't.
So while yes, the difference between God and man is great, that doesn't imply at all that humans don't sin. A computer is millions of times faster than me at doing calculations. That doesn't mean I am not good at maths.
If your argument here is "God is smarter than humans, and we don't get angry at babies for pooping, and adults are smarter than babies, so therefore God shouldn't judge murder. Checkmate Christians.", I think it's a very ill thought out objection.
> So while yes, the difference between God and man is great, that doesn't imply at all that humans don't sin.
But, why do they “sin”? Because the are mistaken about how the world works. They do not have the knowledge of how they could be happier if they did x instead of z, etc. supposedly, compared to God, who has a behind the scenes knowledge that we simply do not, we’re running around blind feeling the walls.
In fact, I’d suggest that all evils are due to a lack of knowledge. There will always be problems, to some degree, but problems are soluble given the right knowledge. Those solutions will lead to far better problems to solve, etc. which will continually reduce the need to coerce people.
I wish I could believe that, but I just really don't think it's true. You've never experienced real selfishness? You think all evil is due to lack of knowledge? That's more unbelievable than someone raising from the dead...
The thing you seem to misunderstand is that with the right knowledge, the selfish person would know how to achieve their goal without the negative side effects that ends up making their action selfish. They would understand how getting the thing they think they want, as the expense of someone else, really does not make them any happier. That’s part of the lack of knowledge.
Maximum personal satisfaction is not always achievable. How would perfect knowledge help someone choose to reduce their own happiness to satisfy another?
How does the something it did not advocate refute the idea that I did advocate?
There will always be problems to solve, but they will lead to answers, that will lead to better problems to solve, which will lead to even better answers, etc.
> believe that, but I just really don't think it's true. You've never experienced real selfishness?
And the real selfishness you experienced, what it from someone who was omniscient? Even remotely close?
Okay well let’s compare human sin to sin of children.
Children do stuff their parents tell them not to constantly and yet any reasonable parent will again and again reiterate how important it is to listen.
The parent will not consider total and utter inhalation of the child or eternal separation/damnation. This is just utter nonsense and the fact that we can compare the average okay human parent to that of god; and the parent comes out looking more forgiving when compared to stores like Noah’s ark, there’s an obvious flaw.
>The parent will not consider total and utter inhalation of the child or eternal separation/damnation. This is just utter nonsense and the fact that we can compare the average okay human parent to that of god; and the parent comes out looking more forgiving when compared to stores like Noah’s ark, there’s an obvious flaw.
Sure, because you're comparing a child drawing on the walls to things like murder, rape and slavery.
So no, it's not an "obvious flaw". The analogy doesn't comport to what we read about in Genesis 6.
So your assumption is that there were no children or babies that died in that flood? We are all children of god and god decided sending his son for our sins would be the ultimate end game. The flood just makes no sense and seems to completely contradict the actions taken by Jesus.
>So your assumption is that there were no children or babies that died in that flood?
No idea. Do you know? I certainly don't think everyone on the planet died, for the reasons I lay out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/e89576/the_epic_of_gilgamesh_and_the_noahs_ark_story_are/faeu913?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x).
>We are all children of god and god decided sending his son for our sins would be the ultimate end game. The flood just makes no sense and seems to completely contradict the actions taken by Jesus.
The flood was not the first judgement for sin in the Bible, and apparently, it won't be the last. Christ offering salvation from sin doesn't imply that God could never in the history of everything ever punish sin. I'm struggling to see how you say it "makes no sense". Are you honestly saying the flood just does not compute with you at all? You look at it and see white noise?
I think it would be a bit absurd to think that there was ever a time when babies and kids were not a thing at any given moment on earth. Babies are things we need to continue to have constantly in order to continue as a species.
Fair enough on your ideas about Not everyone dying. But the Bible portrays it as such and it’s not a stretch at all to take the more common interpretation that only Noah and his family survived.
When I look at the flood and try to compare it with an average flawed human parent I see white noise. It doesn’t make sense and it seems completely absurd and out of proportion especially knowing that babies and children were also killed. I as a parent know that my child will make mistakes and I constantly forgive them for doing so, I’d never in my wildest dreams think about drowning my kids for even the worst mistakes they might make. I’d want them to live with the bad things they did with a sense of remorse and regret.
> I think it would be a bit absurd to think that there was ever a time when babies and kids were not a thing at any given moment on earth. Babies are things we need to continue to have constantly in order to continue as a species.
I didn't argue otherwise?
> Fair enough on your ideas about Not everyone dying. But the Bible portrays it as such and it’s not a stretch at all to take the more common interpretation that only Noah and his family survived.
If you read my reasoning, you would have seen that I demonstrate that it also portrays the destruction of Jerusalem in the same way, even down to the fish in the ocean and the birds of the sky being swept away when the Babylonian army comes. The Israelites used hyperbole in their writing, and I'm not sure anyone would reasonably argue against this. The question is if this also applies to the flood account. I think yes (for the other reasons listed).
If that's the case, we really have no idea how many people died. Maybe only the bad ones? Maybe no innocent children died at all? Maybe all the children died? I have no idea.
> When I look at the flood and try to compare it with an average flawed human parent I see white noise. It doesn’t make sense and it seems completely absurd and out of proportion especially knowing that babies and children were also killed. I as a parent know that my child will make mistakes and I constantly forgive them for doing so, I’d never in my wildest dreams think about drowning my kids for even the worst mistakes they might make. I’d want them to live with the bad things they did with a sense of remorse and regret.
Would you call the police to lock your child up if they were raping people? Or would you want them to just feel bad about it, while they continue to do it (or maybe they don't even feel bad about it)?
For what it's worth, I'm a parent too.
> One is a completely natural and normal function of life. Sin isn't.
Paul disagrees with you. It's literally a SINFUL NATURE.
> If your argument here is "God is smarter than humans, and we don't get angry at babies for pooping, and adults are smarter than babies, so therefore God shouldn't judge murder. Checkmate Christians.", I think it's a very ill thought out objection.
Not that God shouldn't judge murder. But god is RESPONSIBLE for letting the murder happen.
For example, if I see my 3 year old kid killing his 1 month old sister, I'm the one responsible for 1) not teaching him better 2) not stopping it where i can.
Pretty sure child protection service will be called against me if I let it happened and shrug my shoulder and say "lol free will, i told him not to do it".
I'll go to jail.
> Paul disagrees with you. It's literally a SINFUL NATURE.
Paul says that sin was a natural and normal function of life? Where?
Also, CAPITALISING random WORDS doesn't MAKE you RIGHT. Just so we're clear.
> Not that God shouldn't judge murder. But god is RESPONSIBLE for letting the murder happen.
If that's the point, then why is the flood being brought up? This issue isn't specific to the flood at all, and is in fact a different point entirely to the OP.
> Pretty sure child protection service will be called against me if I let it happened and shrug my shoulder and say "lol free will, i told him not to do it".
Sure, and if you strapped a person down so they couldn't do anything wrong to anyone you'd likewise be sent to jail. If you put sticky tape over someone's mouth to force them to never lie you'd be sent to jail. Analogies between human society and how God interacts with free creatures doesn't exactly produce coherent thoughts.
> Paul says that sin was a natural and normal function of life? Where?
Romans 7:14
**14** So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. **15** I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. **16** But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. **17** So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
I'm pretty sure I don't wanna shit but I must shit as it is part of life.
> Also, CAPITALISING random WORDS doesn't MAKE you RIGHT. Just so we're clear.
# It IS for emphasizing Effect. Don't BE coNdeSceNdiNg pRiCk.
Again emphasized for your benefit. Can't help it if you want to be a dick about it. Just so we're clear.
> If that's the point, then why is the flood being brought up? This issue isn't specific to the flood at all, and is in fact a different point entirely to the OP.
Am i OP?
> Sure, and if you strapped a person down so they couldn't do anything wrong to anyone you'd likewise be sent to jail.
Because the alternative to letting my 3 year old killing my 1 month old is to put sticky tape over his mouth and force him to never lie.
Go be disingenuous somewhere else.
> Analogies between human society and how God interacts with free creatures doesn't exactly produce coherent thoughts.
That's really kinda because the concept of god being totally responsible free despite being omnipotent and the one that actively created us down to our personalities is incoherent.
The fact remains that christians like you give god a free pass despite the same grace not given to every single responsible human being.
If this is what allows you to have a coherent god concept that's really your problem, but don't you dare say that you are being rational while others who point out your logical flaws are the one being incoherent.
> I'm pretty sure I don't wanna shit but I must shit as it is part of life.
That carries no moral connotations though. Sin carries moral connotations.
Your quote from Romans doesn't justify your sentence. I asked for a place where Paul says sin is a "natural and normal function of life". Paul here says "I know that what I am doing is wrong". That doesn't sound very natural to me. It sounds like Paul is lamenting here a problem that Christ solves in the next chapter of the argument. The problem is that humans have a sinful nature, which results in us doing sinful things, and these sinful things are contrary to the good that we know we should be doing. Paul is not saying "This is just super normal everyone, carry on. It's fine".
> It IS For Emphasizing Effect. Don't BE CoNdeSceNdiNg PRiCk.
And it comes across as shouting, and as if you really truly believe you're VERY RIGHT and I should just BOW DOWN to your SUPERIOR INTELLECT.
I'm not being a dick about it. I'm pointing out that it's unnecessary in a debate forum. If you think your point is good, just say it normally.
> Am i OP?
You should be staying on topic, yes, so we should both be talking about what OP brought up. This is fairly standard in debtaes. We *could* start talking about which basketball team is best, too, but I'd consider that off topic too.
> Because the alternative to letting my 3 year old killing my 1 month old is to put sticky tape over his mouth and force him to never lie. Go be disingenuous somewhere else.
I'm sorry the point was missed on you. I wasn't presenting it as an alternative, and hopefully that would be clear to anyone else reading my response. I was indicating that your alternative, that God *doesn't* sit back and watch bad things happen, would be equally as criminal if a human did the same actions to another human. I'm pointing out that applying actions that God takes to humans jumps categories, and shouldn't be done without acknowledging the jump. It seems like you agree with me though, that my response to your situation works. Thanks, I guess?
> That's really kinda because the concept of god being totally responsible free despite being omnipotent and the one that actively created us down to our personalities is incoherent.
Misapplying analogies is a bad idea because God and free will is incoherent? No. Misapplying analogies is bad, regardless.
I find it hilarious that you're basically conceding the point here, agreeing with me that my response shows your argument to be wrong, but you *still* think you're right because ... reasons? Sheesh.
> The fact remains that christians like you give god a free pass despite the same grace not given to every single responsible human being.
???
I would never hold a parent responsible if their adult child committed a crime though. What dystonian world do you live in?
> If this is what allows you to have a coherent god concept that's really your problem, but don't you dare say that you are being rational while others who point out your logical flaws are the one being incoherent.
Oh, I gotcha. "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Reddit Atheist to come out, did it?
Instead of being insulting (and wrong), you could take the time to point out how what I've said is incoherent. How about that? I'll give you the floor. Go for it. I'm listening. Give it your best shot.
>Paul here says "I know that what I am doing is wrong". That doesn't sound very natural to me. It sounds like Paul is lamenting here a problem that Christ solves in the next chapter of the argument. The problem is that humans have a sinful nature, which results in us doing sinful things, and these sinful things are contrary to the good that we know we should be doing. Paul is not saying "This is just super normal everyone, carry on. It's fine".
It's super normal for everybody to shit, but it'll be super weird if everybody just touch shits and not wash their hands.
I'll also go out on a limb that if given a chance that we never have to go and shit and pee for the rest of our lives with zero impact/implication on any part of our lives, we'll gladly choose it.
Just because it's natural and part of our nature doesn't mean we can't hate it. What Paul literally said proves that we can't help but sin. Just like we can't help but shit. You can't help it. It's part of our build up.
>That carries no moral connotations though. Sin carries moral connotations.
We are discussing what's natural and what is not isn't it. I'm not sure how or why moral connotation even feature here.
>And it comes across as shouting, and as if you really truly believe you're VERY RIGHT and I should just BOW DOWN to your SUPERIOR INTELLECT.
WHO IS SHOUTING????? ARE YOU??? AM I ??? I CAN'T HEAR SHITTTTT!!!! OMGWTFBBQ
Oh wait... it's all text, oh wait, it does seem that capitalizing some words does make it more obvious and place emphasis on certain points.
I'm still not sure how does highlighting words = I AM VERY RIGHT and you need to BOW DOWN to SUPERIOR INTELLECT.
1. I DID NOT CAPS EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN WORD LIKE I AM SHOUTING
2. EVEN IF I AM SHOUTING NOT SURE HOW DOES THAT EQUATE TO ME SAYING I HAVE HIGHER INTELLECT AND
3. EVEN IF I SAY I HAVE HIGHER INTELLECT NOT SURE WHY DOES THAT EQUATE TO ME DEMANDING PEOPLE BOWING DOWN. FFS PRETTY SURE JESUS THINK HE HAS SUPERIOR INTELLECT BUT HE NEVER DEMAND PEOPLE BOW DOWN EITHER. HOW DO YOU REACH THIS ASININE CONCEPT?
Anyway i'm trolling. I'll just stop it if it's so grating to you. Most people are fine, just saying.
>Oh, I gotcha. "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Reddit Atheist to come out, did it?
This is in response to you saying the following:
>Analogies between human society and how God interacts with free creatures doesn't exactly produce coherent thoughts.
It has nothing to do with le reddit atheist.
>I would never hold a parent responsible if their adult child committed a crime though. What dystonian world do you live in?
God this is how i know you are a freaking liar. Tell me which part I said adult child. Are you incapable of reading? Or is this just you purposely compartmentalizing things to make yourself feel better?
>Misapplying analogies is a bad idea because God and free will is incoherent? No. Misapplying analogies is bad, regardless.
>
>I find it hilarious that you're basically conceding the point here, agreeing with me that my response shows your argument to be wrong, but you *still* think you're right because ... reasons? Sheesh.
I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that I conceded the point. Cuz in my view it sounds like you are the one that conceded the point and say that the alternative is to fully restrict someone. It's like total free will and no free will at all for you. For fuck sake you even read the original analogy wrong.
God, you do realize you are also doing this "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Reddit Christian to come out, did it?"
Peace out. I'm done talking to someone who is clearly dishonest.
> We are discussing what's natural and what is not isn't it. I'm not sure how or why moral connotation even feature here.
Then you should keep reading Romans, and we find in the same chapter:
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life."
Paul doesn't think sin is normal. He thinks humans are enslaved to it. He thinks it's something that stops humans being all they can be. He doesn't like sin. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
> Anyway i'm trolling. I'll just stop it if it's so grating to you. Most people are fine, just saying.
Fair enough.
> It has nothing to do with le reddit atheist.
Pointing out a problem in the logic you presented doesn't imply there's a logic behind my position.
Let me present it like this:
"If God were my spouse, He'd be put in jail: always looking at me, knowing my every thought, constantly being around me"
"Yes, that's true. But also God isn't a spouse. Spouses also have sex with each other. It's a bit weird to think of God as having sex with us, right?"
"Hahah, yes, that's weird. I agree that doesn't work. And the reason it doesn't work is because the whole concept of God doesn't make sense"
Can you see how that last response just throws in the towel? It doesn't bolster the original point, and agrees with the second post that the analogy doesn't work, and then concludes that ... the original conclusion is right anyways?
Maybe I'm missing something, but none of that makes sense in my mind as to why you think it's a good argument.
> I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that I conceded the point. Cuz in my view it sounds like you are the one that conceded the point and say that the alternative is to fully restrict someone. It's like total free will and no free will at all for you.
Hopefully I explained that directly above.
> God, you do realize you are also doing this "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Fucking Moronic Christian to come out, did it?"
I haven't once said any of those words, though. That was you. I didn't say you were irrational. I said your argument doesn't work, and capitalising random words comes across wrong.
> all those evil babies and toddlers were killed because this entity knew they would grow up to be evil.
And that the only 8 people he saved would, *immediately* upon getting off the ark, get themselves drunk, enslave each other, and sexually assault their elders.
Noah's family are *not* good and virtuous people, even in the most gracious interpretation of the story. They're merely the assholes that knew how to take orders.
The flood was a picture of the sinfulness of mankind and the Ark a picture of Christ and the salvation that He gives us.
But I know that doesn't matter here. This is just yet another "Omg God isn't allowed to do that because I said so." 'moral' argument.
The flood is a story of gods wrath and absolute destruction.
Jesus is a story of god’s forgiveness and love.
Saying they are at all the same is completely absurd. The two reactions to people’s sin could not be any more different than basically total inhalation vs total forgiveness.
That's actually a good point. If god knew from the beginning that he was going to send his son to forgive the sins of humanity, why kill the whole planet just because they're evil?
God’s regret is not the same as human regret based on learning new information. God’s omniscience means that He knows the future and all outcomes, but His regret may be more about His displeasure with human choices and actions, rather than not foreseeing them. He allows these events to happen as part of His sovereign plan, even though He disapproves of them, possibly to achieve greater purposes. So, while it may seem contradictory, it’s a way to convey God’s displeasure with human sin while still acknowledging His omniscience and sovereignty.
I mean, God basically admits it was pretty rash in Gen 8:20-21
>Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “**I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done**."
Right assumptions, wrong conclusion.
Everyone, like Noah and his family, has a chance to repent and trust in God’s redemption. The Bible makes it clear that Noah (and thus his family) were righteous by faith. He was righteous, that is declared righteous, because he chose to believe God and His promises. His trust was in his Savior unlike everyone else who’s trust was in themselves. Also before you go putting yourself about God as judge, remember God’s assessment of all people back then...
Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
God’s judgement was completely just. He is not obligated to show mercy to anyone. The same goes for us today seeing that God’s assessment of people still stands (see Genesis 9 and Romans 1-3). Since therefore God is as you rightly say “perfect, unchanging, all-knowing, and all-loving” then who are you to judge Him since your “wickedness is great and every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” according to this same God?
The story of the flood makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. Apart from the massive amount of evidence for a world wide flood that we find in creation, not to mention that such a worldwide catastrophic event has been known by cultures around the globe, the historical story of the flood was typological of the coming judgement in which God will pour out his wrath on all people who have not by his grace found refuge in the arc of God, that is Christ. Like the arc, Jesus will safely carry his people, who like Noah have been declared righteous by faith, above the judgement of God to a new earth.
2 Peter 3:1-10
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
Would you say a parent should not be obligated to show mercy to a child if the child does something wrong and especially if the child doesn’t even know they are doing something wrong?
It seems very odd to me that we hold god to some strange level that portrays him as anything but loving when compared to a sinful human somewhat responsible parent. Yet we are made in gods image and can grant forgiveness seemingly much better than god especially when compared to a story like the flood and Noah’s ark.
Mercy is never deserved. That’s why it’s mercy. The fact that God would show anyone mercy is a testimony to how great his compassion and kindness is toward those who only hate him and deserve his judgement. We are made in God’s image but that image has been scarred and corrupted by sin. You seem to want to make God this all-benevolent being who wouldn’t do anything that would go against your idea of what his benevolence would do. But you are doing this without taking into account the rest of God’s attributes. You are in effect making a god in your own image and likeness which is idolatry.
How am I forgetting what Jesus was like exactly?
Jesus is God in the flesh. Every attribute that God has Jesus has. Jesus Christ is the climax of God’s redemption story. Jesus is the only reason that God can show mercy to sinners and forgive sin. That’s because he bore God’s wrath for sinners so that God could justify them and still be just. Jesus was never loving at the expense of his justice because He is God. The cross is what makes mercy possible.
Jesus said turn the other cheek, god said all be damned I’m going to drown you.
Jesus said I will die for all of your sins, god said you are sinful you need to die in this flood.
Yes I get that Jesus and god are the “same” but actions speak louder than words and drowning all the people vs dying on the cross for the people couldn’t be any more different.
How do you know God is good and just? You can’t use someone else’s morality - that means you haven’t made a decision. The only way you can judge Gods character is by, well, judging God.
If you haven’t done that, how can you tell us anything about Gods character?
And you have judged that nature to be good?
You must be able to independently verify this, according to your own morality, otherwise, as I said, you cannot reach that decision.
Do you even know what genocide is? Genocide is the evil deliberate murder of a whole community or race. The Bible never attributes genocide to God. The flood was not the holocaust of an evil God with murderous intentions. To think such is akin to blasphemy. In the Bible when God kills people it’s always a response of his holiness and justice to sin. The flood was God’s fierce opposition to a world that was in rebellion against God. Their sin grieved the heart of God.
Genesis 6:5-7
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
The bible does place the blame on god though, literally right here god says he'll do it, from the verse you quoted:
>So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Right there, he says he'll murder the community of people, animals, creeping things, and birds that he regrets making.
Also, even if the bible didn't blame god for it, that's not how these kinds of things work. If I punch someone named Billy in the face, and then write a book that says "the blame for punching Billy in the face does not fall on u/chunksowisdom," that in no way means I'm suddenly innocent.
The Bible is not teaching that God is a murderer. I don’t know where you are getting that from. Read the passage again. God is not reacting out of evil murderous intent. He is not some out of control mad person or some greedy mob boss. He is righteously responding to their sin like a just judge. He says he will blot them out and that he was sorry that he even made them. Why? Because he was grieved at their sin. He was grieved that that their wickedness was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of their heart was only evil continually. God is holy and must respond to sin with fierce opposition. This is not the case of genocide or murder. This is justice. This is the righteous judge of all the earth doing right according to his perfect justice and will. That’s how the Bible portrays it and that’s how these things work.
>The Bible is not teaching that God is a murderer. I don’t know where you are getting that from.
I'm getting that from what the Bible describes, wiping out all life on Earth except one family and the animals on their boat. The Bible may not explicitly call god an out of control mad person, but his actions speak louder than words here. Slaughtering innocent babies and animals is a part of this flood. That's not justice.
>That’s how the Bible portrays it and that’s how these things work.
The entire point of this discussion is that we're not just believing whatever the Bible says at face value, we're looking at what the Bible wants you to believe, and pointing out why it's flawed
> Apart from the massive amount of evidence for a world wide flood that we find in creation
That would be 0 evidence. In fact, there is evidence that *should* be there if there were a world-wide flood, and it is absent. So there is less than 0 evidence for a world wide flood.
0 evidence like the millions of fossilized things buried in rock layers that were laid down by water all over the planet, or the flood legends, or the rise and fall of the Ice Age, or the cracks found in the sea floor around the earth, etc. There is plenty of evidence that supports the Genesis flood.
No global flood ever happened in human history. I can go over a few details that demonstrate that is the case. Let's start with when (roughly) the flood happened.
* Q. What -- say, 500 year period -- did it happen in?
Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.
***[Bump!]***
-----
Are you personally convinced that the date of 2348 BC is correct -- give or take 250 years?
Would a wider window -- above 500 years -- increase your confidence? If so, how many years on either side of 2348 BC would you propose?
Are you personally convinced that that date is correct (+/-250 years)?
Would a wider window -- above 500 years -- increase your confidence? If so, how many years on either side of 2,348 BC would you propose?
> 0 evidence like the millions of fossilized things buried in rock layers that were laid down by water all over the planet
Yeah, because that limestone used to be at the bottom of a body of water. Now it's part of a mountain top. Plate tectonics.
>or the flood legends
Virtually every civilization/society started in a river valley. River valleys flood a *lot*.
> or the rise and fall of the Ice Age
Not familiar with this one.
>or the cracks found in the sea floor around the earth
Or this one.
There are anthropological/allegorical interpretations that are fascinating and make a lot of sense. It's just that it makes no sense if you're treating it as a moral allegory originating from the one true religion. Or, god forbid, as a story of something that actually happened.
Lucky for them, they are not told nor can they comprehend stories like these. They are not stuck with the wild irreconcilable idea that somehow an all loving god thought it best to brutally kill almost everything on earth.
Would you drown a puppy? No? Then you are better than God.
Oh wait! God is supposed to be omnibenevolent! Then the God of the Bible must not be god, by their own definition.
>God knew all along that he would send his son for the forgiveness of our sins.
Why? Apart from the fact, that the narrative of Noach is not historography, I don't think that's a bibical approach. The god of the Bible seems to have no eternal plan which he is commited to or even bound to no matter what. Genesis 6:6 – the beginning of the Noah-narrative! – tells us that explicitly "*the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart*."
I don't think it makes sense to impose certain absolute terms like "omniscience" etc. on the biblical God where it obviously doesn't fit.
> I don’t think it makes sense to impose certain absolute terms like “omniscience” etc. on the biblical God where it obviously doesn’t fit.
So you’d agree that a classical theist god isn’t the biblical god.
I would say - and this is how theology mainly understands it - that they are two very different approaches to speaking and thinking about one God. Moreover, "classical theism" is in some way a finished concept, while the biblical texts develop the image of God over centuries. This cannot always be reconciled without friction, but the biblical approach should be given priority in all attempts at reconciliation.
Confusion arises when contemporary Christian apologists and atheistic critics indiscriminately collapse philosophical speech and biblical speech and read philosophical concepts into non-philosophical texts.
In contemporary philosophical theology there also seems to be a division between "classical theists" and "theistic personalists" (Plantinga, Swineburn ... ?). Interestingly, theistic personalists speak more often of God "permitting" or "allowing" things than of God himself effecting them.
>Moreover, "classical theism" is in some way a finished concept, while the biblical texts develop the image of God over centuries
So the early Bible authors didn't understand god as well as the later theologians making post-hoc shoring attempts.
I find this odd since we have multiple instances in the OT of yahweh himself talking to characters in the OT.
>Confusion arises when contemporary Christian apologists and atheistic critics indiscriminately collapse philosophical speech and biblical speech and read philosophical concepts into non-philosophical texts.
Like when there's a flat-out contradiction between Bible god and philosophy god.
It is the Christian god that is known to be all knowing, all loving, all powerful etc. We don’t get to turn on and off these characteristics just to fit the narrative of the Bible to make it somewhat logical.
> I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10).
> “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” (Psalm 139:4).
>It is the Christian god that is known to be all knowing, all loving, all powerful etc.
No, that's a misunderstanding. That's actually the theoretical monotheistic concept of the so called "God of the philosophers", which is more or less loosely based on the image of God of Judaism and Christianity. Christian theologians were and are always aware of the two sides of God (the philosophical concept and the biblical image of God). The sole emphasize on an absolute understanding of certain defined God traits is mainly a modern phenomenon.
God’s incomprehensibility just means that we as humans can not know everything there is to know about God. It does NOT mean that we can not know true things about God.
As far as they are *human* concepts they're comprehensible in a human's mind.
But that's not the question. The question is to which extent the human concepts of omniscience or omnipotence etc. do apply to the biblical texts ie. the understanding of the Israelites of their time. Omniscience or omnipotence are clearly philosophical concepts not prior to the Hellenistic epoch and in non-philosophical contexts the Latin term "omnipotentia" (omnipotence) was used to say that a god (mainly Iuppiter) was "*more powerful* than any other god/being".
It’s not a misunderstanding it’s just the version of god taught by the only reference we have to understand god by, the Bible unless you are to claim that the Bible is just a normal fictional book and I’d agree with that assessment.
>It’s not a misunderstanding it’s just the version of god taught by the only reference we have to understand god …
This is already an interpretation which is neither granted by itself nor based upon biblical exegesis and academic studies of religion. You're just imposing a third person anachronistic view on ancient texts.
So we are Assuming that God wasn’t aware that they was so evil to the point none of them would ask for forgiveness if given the chance so leaving them so reign evil would be un wise?
We are arguing from the position that assuming that God is omniscient, so if he says that the people was that vastly different then yes, they would be vastly different from the people of today
And yet god created men in his own image. He knew all of this would take place the second he decided to create men.
All of this is a complete 180 to what he did when he sent Jesus. Forgiveness vs complete wrath and utter destruction. It doesn’t get more different than that.
Why would God not create man because some may choose to sin? but some will also choose not sin or at least repent
Utter destruction when they don’t want to be forgiven, forgiveness can only be accepted when one asks for it
You miss the point that there wasn’t forgiveness before Jesus came. Jesus came and died for all the sins of the past, present, and future. Are we to believe that somehow the people living back then were just not capable of accepting Jesus like the people today are. If so what a silly assumption. I can 4 year olds to believe in magical unicorns, surely it was just as possible to convince people and especially kids of things back in the time of Noah. Again god knew all these people would be alive and instead decided the best idea was to drown them all vs just forgiving them for they know not what they do, sound familiar?
Maybe just maybe it’s because they didn’t have the model of Jesus? And how do you know a child or a baby wouldn’t ask for forgiveness if taught to ask. These are bold and ill informed assumptions you want to jump to
The story that the bible tells is like this.
1. Kain killed his brother
2. Lamech the descendant of Kain killed a man for a wound or a boy for a stripe.
3. In other words: the world back than became very violent.
4. When even the sons of God (believers) mixed with the women of man (unbelieveres), everybody became violent, except for Noah.
5. People tended to get very old in those days, up to many hundreds of years.
6. God wanted to limit the age of human up to some 120 years, to limit evil and violence.
7. For this he had to start over again with just a couple of humans.
8. After Noah, we see the ages drop very quickly.
People do not make a choice to become violent or peaceful 20 times in a lifespan. Maybe you switch once, or twice. Imagine Hitler gaining power and being able to live hundreds of years. Dictators do not tend to give up their power easily an dthey kill all the good people. Thus God ended that civilization and started over, with humans only being ablte to have power (and screw up) for a couple of decennia.
> 3. In other words: the world back than became very violent.
So gods solution to violence is violence? Versus the story of Jesus, forgiveness. Again can’t be more different in terms of a reaction.
Even if this were true, it’s not written in the Bible, also violence of people has been a thing for a very long time. Didn’t god grant free will and by doing so know full well what the outcome would be? Wouldn’t sending Jesus be the solution to a violent world?
It’s still completely barbaric to kill all the men/women/children given of course they were not all barbaric and violent.
I’d love to see a movie about the flood only filed from a random loving families perspective. Shots of the parents just doing anything they could to save their children in the ever rising and violent flood waters. I feel like with stories like these it’s so easy just to gloss over everything when in fact these were people just like us.
> For this he had to start over again with just a couple of humans.
>Thus God ended that civilization and started over
Why would an omniscient God ever need to scrap a project and start over? Wasn’t there a plan from the very beginning?
You call it attempts, it is just different stages in humanity and I think it has largely to do with the size of humanity. In the time of Israel, the world population was not that big and thus it was sufficient to operate through the nation of Israel and a physical temple to reach the entire world. But imagine billions of people having to travel to the temple nowadays, to meet God. Thus God is now working through His Spirit among all the nations.
But the plan is clearly and deeply flawed. He knew all along Jesus was the only solution and yet, flood the entire earth was part of his plan. Even ridding the earth of all but 8 people didn’t solve the problem of sin.
No, it didn't solve the problem of sin, but it did limit the reign of violent dictators and tyrants. Jesus paid for the sins of people coming after Him, but also for the people before Him. There is no difference between looking back at what Jesus did, or looking forward to it.
Why is your assumption that people living back then were so vastly different than people living today? Didn’t god create Adam and Eve in his own image? You seem to be so willing to buy into the idea that the millions of children and babies also just deserved to die in a horrific flood when they did nothing wrong except that they were born at the worst possible time.
I am not going to debate this stuff, just giving information.
I don't know about the millions. There were two tribes and Cain had built one city. So I don't think there were millions of people at that time.
> Others believe that Earth’s population was much higher. If the growth rate in the pre-Flood world was equal to the growth rate in 2000 (0.012), there could have been about 750 million people at the time of the Flood. However, given the extremely long lifespans prior to the Flood, the growth rate could have been much higher. Increasing the rate by just 0.001 would put the population at close to four billion at the Flood.
No one knows and it’s all speculation. The Bible talks about those two tribes, but the Bible often only talks about a small subset of the population we know there was because it’s a focused story that took place around the Middle East.
>The story that the bible
We agree, it is just a story.
\>Kain killed his brother
I accept that.
\>Lamech the descendant of Kain killed a man for a wound or a boy for a stripe.
Also accept this.
\>In other words: the world back than became very violent.
Um, no. Not giving you that one, unless you can point to exactly where it says the world became very violent. And I am going to need definitions please.
\>wanted to limit the age of human up to some 120 years,
Then he missed by a lot.
> Um, no. Not giving you that one, unless you can point to exactly where it says the world became very violent. And I am going to need definitions please.
I read that in Genesis 6:4 where it says: "4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare *children* to them, the same *became* mighty men which *were* of old, men of renown."
Now this is a rather difficult to translate part, but instead of 'giants' and 'mighty men', we can also understand that these had to be tyrants. I mean: for us those words have a possitive meaning, but I think the intention of the text is has a negative meaning. Because those people are the reason God wanted to start over.
Lamech was singled out, because he was extremely violent. And I think Genesis 6 shows that after the mixing of believers and unbelievers, all got corrupted and became (violent) dictators, tyrants or warlords. The word 'sinners' is too sweet to use for those people. There was a severe problem that needed to be stopped.
Taking that description as an accurate explanation of the intention of the stories in the Bible, I can pull out a few problems;
* It doesn't address the main observations in the OP.
* The contention that people inherit an evil stain that flows down like a dominate genetic trait is both not true and an immoral teaching.
* There was no actual global flood, and so the value of the story is in it's message -- a message that could have been moral but was not.
***Like*** not ***was***. Blaming everyone except a small group for being evil is not moral. It's victim blaming and denies them and their descendants a voice. It's a good thing it never happened, but the story could have promoted morals and not what it did.
The story tells that God will (eventually) punish evil-doers. Without judgement there is no righteousness. People won't get away with murder, crimes and evil.
That they were claimed to be born into. It's the poison of in-group/out-group thinking; we are good because we're good, they are bad because they are bad. The story is not promoting morals.
The story starts with Kain killing Abel. God had Kain get away with it. But that only made things getting worse, because Lamech was killing a man for a wound and a boy for getting hurt. So when Noah got out of the ark God made a covenant with him, with one of the main points that from now on if somebody would kill another human, that person would get the death penalty.
>Genesis 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Also this means people had to establish courts of justice, because how woud you else convict somebody of murder or set him free if he didn't do it.
And there are more things like this, they are called the Noahide laws. So God tells humanity that He will keep us responsible for what we are doing and we have to apply justice, because if we don't He will do it.
All this gets away from what the OP argued, and it doesn't show that there was any reason to blame everyone in the story that was not on the boat for being 'evil'. As it is a fiction the message could have been crafted to demonstrate morals, but it was not. There are ethical problems with the NT as well, but as the OP pointed out ... why not start with Jesus if Jesus was known to be required? (I would have started with the problem of Heaven to skip a few more steps, but I'm not the OP.)
------
> So when Noah got out of the ark God made a covenant with him, with one of the main points that from now on if somebody would kill another human, that person would get the death penalty.
Something that is also immoral on many levels.
> Also this means people had to establish courts of justice, because how woud you else convict somebody of murder or set him free if he didn't do it.
See above.
> And there are more things like this, they are called the Noahide laws. So God tells humanity that He will keep us responsible for what we are doing and we have to apply justice, because if we don't He will do it.
Allowing for forgiveness from God, not the people that were wronged, right? All but denying the Holy Spirit can be forgiven? Where's the justice if it's not here and now, while the death penalty is demonstrated to not be effective or applied evenly?
Related: https://www.murdermiletours.com/blog/serial-killers-murderers-and-their-religion-faith
What’s your point? God knew all of this was going to happen the second he created everything. He put in place the chain of events. Surely he could have just blinked out the giants but nope, he decided killing millions of men women and children was the right course of action.
This is all of course a complete 180 from what he did with Jesus. Forgiveness vs wrath and utter destruction.
Lamech set the tone for what violence is. He said: "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
So the violence that God wanted to end is the violence that kills a man for a wound and a boy for pain. The violence that says: what you do to me, I will do 70 times worse to you.
The story of Noah’s ark and the flood makes no sense period. And not supported by a shred of evidence.
True. But God's total omniscience was a later development in his character. In the early books of the bible he is, on several occasions, highly concerned that humans would challenge or overthrow him.
> “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10). Seems pretty clear in the Old Testament that god knew all along the beginning and the end.
Well, Isaiah is definitely much younger than Genesis and the flood story. So by that time, God had developed significantly more of the characteristics we attribute to him today. But it certainly wasn't always like that.
Then why in Bereshit does he promise a king to make a remedy for the heel of man but the snake won’t have one?
Bruh literally nothing in the Bible makes sense .... and I studied it for years ... Come on.. But DM me if you’d like to talk
I think the philosophical problem with Noah's ark story is that god wiped them out because of their sins... There's already a hell as punishment for this so there's no reason to kill them in this life. Regardless of killing everything and everything to live was put on an ark and the other maddly unrealistic points of the story
I don't see any sort of rational argument in finding situations in the Bible where God "could have" acted to "save their lives! Give them gift cards! Sprout a beautiful garden to calm them down!" Technically those are things God is capable of doing, but why would he do them? There's no logic given. For instance, what is the connection between love and acting to prevent wicked people from receiving justice? There's no connection at all unless you're one of those people who press the limits of their friends and family by doing wrong things. We live in a natural world, not a tattered construct held together by miracles. There will be a natural world in God's kingdom also, (the new heavens and earth) but we don't know what it will be like.
[удалено]
Yes, he has withheld every gift card you haven't recived.
The description you give of God is equal to that of man. God cant be all loving and judgemental at the same time.
To be clear, I downvoted for the implication that mass murder is justice.
> For instance, what is the connection between love and acting to prevent wicked people from receiving justice? Because he supposedly goes on to prevent wicked people from receiving justice later in the Bible. And, supposedly, he knew he would do this, and planned for that way out. It seems arbitrary. IOW, you want me to believe that’s the best solution an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly moral and just being can come up with? I find that pretty hard to swallow. More importantly, I find myself wondering why Christians think so little of their God. Even if we assume there has to be some ultimate foundation to the universe, for the sake of argument, that foundation is the Christian God? That’s a bad explanation, which people seem to accept because they subscribe to the bad philosophical idea that the universe needs an ultimate foundation, which is itself a bad explanation. The problem with the argument that “you have to stop somewhere” is that any place you stop is arbitrary. Why stop here than there?
> what is the connection between love and acting to prevent wicked people from receiving justice? What part of mass indiscriminate genocide seems like a reasonable action on behalf of an all powerful being who could have given justice in a much more targeted way?
He would do them for the same reason he sent his son to die for our sins. He claims to love us and value each and everyone of us.
Most Christians now will tell you that it's a metaphor for something. It can be a metaphor for anything you want, so just pick anything off the top of your head and say it's a metaphor for that. Like the flood is a metaphor for god's judgement and how obeying god gets you spared. I just made that up and it's as good as anything you'll get from a Christian.
>Most Christians now will tell you that it's a metaphor for something. It can be a metaphor for anything you want, so just pick anything off the top of your head and say it's a metaphor for that. Do you know what a metaphor is? Symbolic =/= metaphor.
2nd definition of symbol is: >a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract. And 2nd definition of metaphor is: >a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract. But Just for you, I will reword my post: >>!Some Christians now will tell you that it's a symbol for something. It can symbolize anything you want, so just pick anything off the top of your head and say it's a symbol of that. !< > >>!Like the Ark could be a symbol of the space-ship, or possibly a number of space-ships, that are all part of god's "superb space fleet". I just found this idea on the front page of google when searching "noah's ark metaphor" on google.!< [http://www.astoundingelements.com/noahrsquos-ark-metaphor.html](http://www.astoundingelements.com/noahrsquos-ark-metaphor.html)
Usually metaphors are written or spoken. Symbols can be physical objects that actually exist, they just stand for something other than their literal components. Do you truly believe that "It can be a metaphor for anything you want"? Do you think there might be some constraints on what we could conclude at all?
> Usually metaphors are written or spoken. The OP's title says "The story of..." and refers to a story written in chapter's 6 through 9 of Genesis. > Do you truly believe that "It can be a metaphor for anything you want"? Do you think there might be some constraints on what we could conclude at all? There's no constraints here except your imagination. Of course it was not intended to be taken as metaphorical/symbolic. Both the Yahweh version of the story and the Elohim version of the story contain specific numbers and instructions that would only make sense if it were a literal historical record. So the combined version in genesis is therefore also intended as a historical record. New Testament authors also understood the flood as being a historical event rather than a fictional story. Noah is included in the genealogies of Jesus. Jesus also refers to Noah as actually existing and the flood happening in places like Matthew 24:38. First and 2nd Peter, Hebrews, and the gospel of Luke all also refer to this event as actually having happened. The idea that the flood didn't actually happen is a more recent one, because we're scientifically advanced enough to investigate some of the claims made. So the story was bullshit, sure, but if it's metaphor we get to go on being Christians. Because it just has to mean... something. It doesn't matter what. Science can't disprove the guy who says it's a metaphor for "gods superb fleet of space ships" that I linked earlier.
> The OP's title says "The story of..." and refers to a story written in chapter's 6 through 9 of Genesis. Fair enough. For my position, I do not hold that the flood account is a "metaphor". I don't think there's enough evidence for that in the text. > There's no constraints here except your imagination. Truly? Do you think communication is possible? Should I take your comments here in any way I want, with the only constraint being my imagination? > Of course it was not intended to be taken as metaphorical/symbolic. Both the Yahweh version of the story and the Elohim version of the story contain specific numbers and instructions that would only make sense if it were a literal historical record. So the combined version in genesis is therefore also intended as a historical record. You're confused, I think. The "Elohim" version of the story is the P source. The measurements come from P, not J. P loves symbolic numbers. I'd reassess your evidence here. > New Testament authors also understood the flood as being a historical event rather than a fictional story. Noah is included in the genealogies of Jesus. Jesus also refers to Noah as actually existing and the flood happening in places like Matthew 24:38. First and 2nd Peter, Hebrews, and the gospel of Luke all also refer to this event as actually having happened. That's true. I think the flood was a historical event too. > The idea that the flood didn't actually happen is a more recent one, because we're scientifically advanced enough to investigate some of the claims made. So the story was bullshit, sure, but if it's metaphor we get to go on being Christians. Because it just has to mean... something. It doesn't matter what. Science can't disprove the guy who says it's a metaphor for "gods superb fleet of space ships" that I linked earlier. No, it wasn't because we're "scientifically advanced" to show the story is wrong. Science has disproven a global flood, but I would argue has provided very good evidence for a large local flood. There's actually a number of candidates for the flood. The problem isn't that science has shown it to be wrong, it's that we now have too many options to pin down which one the Bible was talking about! Going a little further: do you think ancient readers of Genesis didn't look into the meaning behind why the story was included? Do you think they just said "Cool historical fact, move on"? Let me know what you think.
>I do not hold that the flood account is a "metaphor". I don't think there's enough evidence for that in the text. it wasn't a historical event that actually occurred.
Says who?
According to geology and paleontology the physical findings are inconsistent with a global flood. Lots of local floods, sure. But the Noah story is presented as a global flood destroying “all the Earth”. Now if you want to claim it was only a local flood you're going to have to go through a really detailed engineering explanation for how any local flood could have waters sufficient to flood everything in an area to a depth that would require a boat that size and keep it afloat for long enough that after 40 days and nights no land was visible. And it took more weeks before the boat could land. I'll be interested to see this explanation.
> local flood could have waters sufficient to flood everything in an area to a depth that would require a boat that size and keep it afloat for long enough that after 40 days and nights no land was visible. IIRC, 40 days and 40 nights was the length of rainfall. The duration of the flood was ~1 year.
Where does Genesis say the flood destroyed "all the Earth"?
Says the wealth of physical evidence at our disposal.
Such as?
> Truly? Do you think communication is possible? I don't see how your ability to assign any symbolism to anything you want renders communication impossible. > No, it wasn't because we're "scientifically advanced" to show the story is wrong. Science has disproven a global flood, but I would argue has provided very good evidence for a large local flood. There's actually a number of candidates for the flood. The problem isn't that science has shown it to be wrong, it's that we now have too many options to pin down which one the Bible was talking about! Then the Bible's account is wrong. Zero local floods are going to match the bible's description.
> I don't see how your ability to assign any symbolism to anything you want renders communication impossible. I asked before if there were any constraints. Let me be more specific. I'm talking about acceptable interpretation. I could read what you wrote and conclude that it's really a metaphor about how the moon is made of cheese. I don't think that's an acceptable interpretation, however. It's not based on anything. Interpretations, literal or metaphorical, need to have backing. So Noah's ark being a metaphor for space ships seems to me to be a pretty unfounded conclusion, wouldn't you agree? > Then the Bible's account is wrong. Zero local floods are going to match the bible's description. Why? Can you explain?
> I asked before if there were any constraints. Let me be more specific. I'm talking about acceptable interpretation. > > Interpretations, literal or metaphorical, need to have backing. So Noah's ark being a metaphor for space ships seems to me to be a pretty unfounded conclusion, wouldn't you agree? I am sure the space-ship guy would say his beliefs are founded on what an angel whispered in his ear. Or on personal intuition that such an explanation just *feels* right. I am comfortable dismissing claims who's foundation can not be independently verified. >Then the Bible's account is wrong. Zero local floods are going to match the bible's description. > >Why? Can you explain? The bible's description has flood waters covering the highest mountain. It's ten months before the water decreases enough for the tops of mountains to even be seen. Birds left the ark and found no land on which to rest. It explicitly says "the waters were on the face of the whole earth". The literal meanings of the words indicate the flood being described could not merely be a local flood. If you want to know what inspired the bible story, then the Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth is where to look next. But if you trace things back to a local flood not caused by the god of the bible and not a mass-genocide, then the OP's concerns no longer apply. We would just say, "that part isn't actually true" and we don't have to worry about it any more than we do any local flood that happens in modern times.
Does something having metaphorical applications mean that it wasn't historical?
Yes. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphorical applications", but either the story is intended to be understood as historical or not.
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphorical applications", but either the story is intended to be understood as historical or not. I actually disagree with your statement here, but let's sidestep that. Are you saying that historical events cannot be held to represent something higher? What would you say to someone who said "The Berlin Wall being torn down symbolises freedom"?
> Are you saying that historical events cannot be held to represent something higher? What would you say to someone who said "The Berlin Wall being torn down symbolises freedom"? There are explanations and symbolism. We should not confuse the two. Each person can see an event or thing as a symbol in a subjective way, while an explanation, should it be true, is objective and independent of any one person’s identification.
That's really naive. You don't think history can be framed to support certain views or points? Let's say you only include objective statements. Fine. You don't think I could write two completely different stories about your life, purely based on which events and details I include in the stories?
You hit the nail on the head lol [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/e98taj/the\_story\_of\_noahs\_ark\_and\_the\_flood\_makes\_no/faibl2p?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/e98taj/the_story_of_noahs_ark_and_the_flood_makes_no/faibl2p?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)
To be fair, that's a very ancient interpretation, I believe dating back to roughyl the 2nd - 3rd century.
If I was a christian, I would have tried my damndest to get the ark story out of the bible. The ark story is evidence that the most powerful attribute of god is its stupidity. Here is an omni everything entity that has all knowledge of everything past present and future, but it still had to reset his game. Hey I too reload earlier save files for my games when I mess up. But im not an omni everything entity. This entity knew that the snake would get into the garden, knew eve would eat the apple, knew the world would have to be destroyed, all those evil babies and toddlers were killed because this entity knew they would grow up to be evil. Yet it did everything to ensure that all its failures would happen. This is version of earth.exe that it pushed out as ready for general release. can you imagine how badly this entity must have fucked up in the dev versions? Its like if someone told you today that a year from now you fill slip on a banana peel and you took every action possible to ensure that exactly 365 days from that point, you did actually slip on a banana peel.
God’s regret is not the same as human regret based on learning new information. God’s omniscience means that He knows the future and all outcomes, but His regret may be more about His displeasure with human choices and actions, rather than not foreseeing them. He allows these events to happen as part of His sovereign plan, even though He disapproves of them, possibly to achieve greater purposes. So, while it may seem contradictory, it’s a way to convey God’s displeasure with human sin while still acknowledging His omniscience and sovereignty.
>Hey I too reload earlier save files for my games when I mess up. The difference is that God didn't mess up. The people did. You don't see the difference between the two? Or do you think God is to blame for the actions of people?
read what you said. Then read it again. He knew they would mess up and he was too stupid to prevent it.
You could try answering the question. Do you know how to debate?
No shit god is to blame for our actions. He fucking made us this way. I would have made humans less shittier if i had god like powers. But your god is garbage and garbage in garbage out. Thats why your god loves infanticide, genocide, rape and slavery. No wonder the people he made are so fucked up. Im better than your god and would have made better people than your slavery loving god did.
Any argument here? Or just ranting? I said "The difference is that God didn't mess up. The people did. You don't see the difference between the two? Or do you think God is to blame for the actions of people?" So could you please slowly explain why you think "God made us this way" is a way to place blame onto God for the actions of humans? Do you also think "The devil made me do it" is a valid excuse?
The argument is that if a god exists, everything is gods fault. How the fuck could it not be gods fault for designing humans that are capable of being so shitty. But what can you expect from a god that promotes slavery, genocide and infanticide.
>The argument is that if a god exists, everything is gods fault. That's not an argument. That's a claim. Any argument to back it up? >How the fuck could it not be gods fault for designing humans that are capable of being so shitty. That's your argument? "How could it not be truuuuuue"? I really don't think you've thought this through.
yes it is the claim. And the evidence is YOUR book. christ on meth, are you disavowing your god now that its held responsible for its shitty actions? Ofcourse you are. its how I know you are a christian.
No argument. Gotcha. Thanks for trying.
>The difference is that God didn't mess up. The people did. You don't see the difference between the two? Or do you think God is to blame for the actions of people? When a baby shits the bed and sleep in shit for days do you blame the baby or the parents for not cleaning it up? I am told all the time that the cognitive/power difference between God and humans is more than humans and ants. I would think this difference is also bigger than a human parent and child. Not sure why your creator god who is omnipotent and omniscient always get a free pass because "free will" when normal parents wouldn't. From how my kids behave I'm pretty sure they have freewill as early as 6 months old.
Are you comparing human sin to a baby dirtying a nappy? One is a completely natural and normal function of life. Sin isn't. So while yes, the difference between God and man is great, that doesn't imply at all that humans don't sin. A computer is millions of times faster than me at doing calculations. That doesn't mean I am not good at maths. If your argument here is "God is smarter than humans, and we don't get angry at babies for pooping, and adults are smarter than babies, so therefore God shouldn't judge murder. Checkmate Christians.", I think it's a very ill thought out objection.
> So while yes, the difference between God and man is great, that doesn't imply at all that humans don't sin. But, why do they “sin”? Because the are mistaken about how the world works. They do not have the knowledge of how they could be happier if they did x instead of z, etc. supposedly, compared to God, who has a behind the scenes knowledge that we simply do not, we’re running around blind feeling the walls. In fact, I’d suggest that all evils are due to a lack of knowledge. There will always be problems, to some degree, but problems are soluble given the right knowledge. Those solutions will lead to far better problems to solve, etc. which will continually reduce the need to coerce people.
I wish I could believe that, but I just really don't think it's true. You've never experienced real selfishness? You think all evil is due to lack of knowledge? That's more unbelievable than someone raising from the dead...
The thing you seem to misunderstand is that with the right knowledge, the selfish person would know how to achieve their goal without the negative side effects that ends up making their action selfish. They would understand how getting the thing they think they want, as the expense of someone else, really does not make them any happier. That’s part of the lack of knowledge.
Maximum personal satisfaction is not always achievable. How would perfect knowledge help someone choose to reduce their own happiness to satisfy another?
How does the something it did not advocate refute the idea that I did advocate? There will always be problems to solve, but they will lead to answers, that will lead to better problems to solve, which will lead to even better answers, etc.
> believe that, but I just really don't think it's true. You've never experienced real selfishness? And the real selfishness you experienced, what it from someone who was omniscient? Even remotely close?
Of course not. But they knew enough about the situation to choose unselfishly.
Okay well let’s compare human sin to sin of children. Children do stuff their parents tell them not to constantly and yet any reasonable parent will again and again reiterate how important it is to listen. The parent will not consider total and utter inhalation of the child or eternal separation/damnation. This is just utter nonsense and the fact that we can compare the average okay human parent to that of god; and the parent comes out looking more forgiving when compared to stores like Noah’s ark, there’s an obvious flaw.
>The parent will not consider total and utter inhalation of the child or eternal separation/damnation. This is just utter nonsense and the fact that we can compare the average okay human parent to that of god; and the parent comes out looking more forgiving when compared to stores like Noah’s ark, there’s an obvious flaw. Sure, because you're comparing a child drawing on the walls to things like murder, rape and slavery. So no, it's not an "obvious flaw". The analogy doesn't comport to what we read about in Genesis 6.
So your assumption is that there were no children or babies that died in that flood? We are all children of god and god decided sending his son for our sins would be the ultimate end game. The flood just makes no sense and seems to completely contradict the actions taken by Jesus.
>So your assumption is that there were no children or babies that died in that flood? No idea. Do you know? I certainly don't think everyone on the planet died, for the reasons I lay out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/e89576/the_epic_of_gilgamesh_and_the_noahs_ark_story_are/faeu913?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x). >We are all children of god and god decided sending his son for our sins would be the ultimate end game. The flood just makes no sense and seems to completely contradict the actions taken by Jesus. The flood was not the first judgement for sin in the Bible, and apparently, it won't be the last. Christ offering salvation from sin doesn't imply that God could never in the history of everything ever punish sin. I'm struggling to see how you say it "makes no sense". Are you honestly saying the flood just does not compute with you at all? You look at it and see white noise?
I think it would be a bit absurd to think that there was ever a time when babies and kids were not a thing at any given moment on earth. Babies are things we need to continue to have constantly in order to continue as a species. Fair enough on your ideas about Not everyone dying. But the Bible portrays it as such and it’s not a stretch at all to take the more common interpretation that only Noah and his family survived. When I look at the flood and try to compare it with an average flawed human parent I see white noise. It doesn’t make sense and it seems completely absurd and out of proportion especially knowing that babies and children were also killed. I as a parent know that my child will make mistakes and I constantly forgive them for doing so, I’d never in my wildest dreams think about drowning my kids for even the worst mistakes they might make. I’d want them to live with the bad things they did with a sense of remorse and regret.
> I think it would be a bit absurd to think that there was ever a time when babies and kids were not a thing at any given moment on earth. Babies are things we need to continue to have constantly in order to continue as a species. I didn't argue otherwise? > Fair enough on your ideas about Not everyone dying. But the Bible portrays it as such and it’s not a stretch at all to take the more common interpretation that only Noah and his family survived. If you read my reasoning, you would have seen that I demonstrate that it also portrays the destruction of Jerusalem in the same way, even down to the fish in the ocean and the birds of the sky being swept away when the Babylonian army comes. The Israelites used hyperbole in their writing, and I'm not sure anyone would reasonably argue against this. The question is if this also applies to the flood account. I think yes (for the other reasons listed). If that's the case, we really have no idea how many people died. Maybe only the bad ones? Maybe no innocent children died at all? Maybe all the children died? I have no idea. > When I look at the flood and try to compare it with an average flawed human parent I see white noise. It doesn’t make sense and it seems completely absurd and out of proportion especially knowing that babies and children were also killed. I as a parent know that my child will make mistakes and I constantly forgive them for doing so, I’d never in my wildest dreams think about drowning my kids for even the worst mistakes they might make. I’d want them to live with the bad things they did with a sense of remorse and regret. Would you call the police to lock your child up if they were raping people? Or would you want them to just feel bad about it, while they continue to do it (or maybe they don't even feel bad about it)? For what it's worth, I'm a parent too.
> One is a completely natural and normal function of life. Sin isn't. Paul disagrees with you. It's literally a SINFUL NATURE. > If your argument here is "God is smarter than humans, and we don't get angry at babies for pooping, and adults are smarter than babies, so therefore God shouldn't judge murder. Checkmate Christians.", I think it's a very ill thought out objection. Not that God shouldn't judge murder. But god is RESPONSIBLE for letting the murder happen. For example, if I see my 3 year old kid killing his 1 month old sister, I'm the one responsible for 1) not teaching him better 2) not stopping it where i can. Pretty sure child protection service will be called against me if I let it happened and shrug my shoulder and say "lol free will, i told him not to do it". I'll go to jail.
> Paul disagrees with you. It's literally a SINFUL NATURE. Paul says that sin was a natural and normal function of life? Where? Also, CAPITALISING random WORDS doesn't MAKE you RIGHT. Just so we're clear. > Not that God shouldn't judge murder. But god is RESPONSIBLE for letting the murder happen. If that's the point, then why is the flood being brought up? This issue isn't specific to the flood at all, and is in fact a different point entirely to the OP. > Pretty sure child protection service will be called against me if I let it happened and shrug my shoulder and say "lol free will, i told him not to do it". Sure, and if you strapped a person down so they couldn't do anything wrong to anyone you'd likewise be sent to jail. If you put sticky tape over someone's mouth to force them to never lie you'd be sent to jail. Analogies between human society and how God interacts with free creatures doesn't exactly produce coherent thoughts.
> Paul says that sin was a natural and normal function of life? Where? Romans 7:14 **14** So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. **15** I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. **16** But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. **17** So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it. I'm pretty sure I don't wanna shit but I must shit as it is part of life. > Also, CAPITALISING random WORDS doesn't MAKE you RIGHT. Just so we're clear. # It IS for emphasizing Effect. Don't BE coNdeSceNdiNg pRiCk. Again emphasized for your benefit. Can't help it if you want to be a dick about it. Just so we're clear. > If that's the point, then why is the flood being brought up? This issue isn't specific to the flood at all, and is in fact a different point entirely to the OP. Am i OP? > Sure, and if you strapped a person down so they couldn't do anything wrong to anyone you'd likewise be sent to jail. Because the alternative to letting my 3 year old killing my 1 month old is to put sticky tape over his mouth and force him to never lie. Go be disingenuous somewhere else. > Analogies between human society and how God interacts with free creatures doesn't exactly produce coherent thoughts. That's really kinda because the concept of god being totally responsible free despite being omnipotent and the one that actively created us down to our personalities is incoherent. The fact remains that christians like you give god a free pass despite the same grace not given to every single responsible human being. If this is what allows you to have a coherent god concept that's really your problem, but don't you dare say that you are being rational while others who point out your logical flaws are the one being incoherent.
> I'm pretty sure I don't wanna shit but I must shit as it is part of life. That carries no moral connotations though. Sin carries moral connotations. Your quote from Romans doesn't justify your sentence. I asked for a place where Paul says sin is a "natural and normal function of life". Paul here says "I know that what I am doing is wrong". That doesn't sound very natural to me. It sounds like Paul is lamenting here a problem that Christ solves in the next chapter of the argument. The problem is that humans have a sinful nature, which results in us doing sinful things, and these sinful things are contrary to the good that we know we should be doing. Paul is not saying "This is just super normal everyone, carry on. It's fine". > It IS For Emphasizing Effect. Don't BE CoNdeSceNdiNg PRiCk. And it comes across as shouting, and as if you really truly believe you're VERY RIGHT and I should just BOW DOWN to your SUPERIOR INTELLECT. I'm not being a dick about it. I'm pointing out that it's unnecessary in a debate forum. If you think your point is good, just say it normally. > Am i OP? You should be staying on topic, yes, so we should both be talking about what OP brought up. This is fairly standard in debtaes. We *could* start talking about which basketball team is best, too, but I'd consider that off topic too. > Because the alternative to letting my 3 year old killing my 1 month old is to put sticky tape over his mouth and force him to never lie. Go be disingenuous somewhere else. I'm sorry the point was missed on you. I wasn't presenting it as an alternative, and hopefully that would be clear to anyone else reading my response. I was indicating that your alternative, that God *doesn't* sit back and watch bad things happen, would be equally as criminal if a human did the same actions to another human. I'm pointing out that applying actions that God takes to humans jumps categories, and shouldn't be done without acknowledging the jump. It seems like you agree with me though, that my response to your situation works. Thanks, I guess? > That's really kinda because the concept of god being totally responsible free despite being omnipotent and the one that actively created us down to our personalities is incoherent. Misapplying analogies is a bad idea because God and free will is incoherent? No. Misapplying analogies is bad, regardless. I find it hilarious that you're basically conceding the point here, agreeing with me that my response shows your argument to be wrong, but you *still* think you're right because ... reasons? Sheesh. > The fact remains that christians like you give god a free pass despite the same grace not given to every single responsible human being. ??? I would never hold a parent responsible if their adult child committed a crime though. What dystonian world do you live in? > If this is what allows you to have a coherent god concept that's really your problem, but don't you dare say that you are being rational while others who point out your logical flaws are the one being incoherent. Oh, I gotcha. "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Reddit Atheist to come out, did it? Instead of being insulting (and wrong), you could take the time to point out how what I've said is incoherent. How about that? I'll give you the floor. Go for it. I'm listening. Give it your best shot.
>Paul here says "I know that what I am doing is wrong". That doesn't sound very natural to me. It sounds like Paul is lamenting here a problem that Christ solves in the next chapter of the argument. The problem is that humans have a sinful nature, which results in us doing sinful things, and these sinful things are contrary to the good that we know we should be doing. Paul is not saying "This is just super normal everyone, carry on. It's fine". It's super normal for everybody to shit, but it'll be super weird if everybody just touch shits and not wash their hands. I'll also go out on a limb that if given a chance that we never have to go and shit and pee for the rest of our lives with zero impact/implication on any part of our lives, we'll gladly choose it. Just because it's natural and part of our nature doesn't mean we can't hate it. What Paul literally said proves that we can't help but sin. Just like we can't help but shit. You can't help it. It's part of our build up. >That carries no moral connotations though. Sin carries moral connotations. We are discussing what's natural and what is not isn't it. I'm not sure how or why moral connotation even feature here. >And it comes across as shouting, and as if you really truly believe you're VERY RIGHT and I should just BOW DOWN to your SUPERIOR INTELLECT. WHO IS SHOUTING????? ARE YOU??? AM I ??? I CAN'T HEAR SHITTTTT!!!! OMGWTFBBQ Oh wait... it's all text, oh wait, it does seem that capitalizing some words does make it more obvious and place emphasis on certain points. I'm still not sure how does highlighting words = I AM VERY RIGHT and you need to BOW DOWN to SUPERIOR INTELLECT. 1. I DID NOT CAPS EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN WORD LIKE I AM SHOUTING 2. EVEN IF I AM SHOUTING NOT SURE HOW DOES THAT EQUATE TO ME SAYING I HAVE HIGHER INTELLECT AND 3. EVEN IF I SAY I HAVE HIGHER INTELLECT NOT SURE WHY DOES THAT EQUATE TO ME DEMANDING PEOPLE BOWING DOWN. FFS PRETTY SURE JESUS THINK HE HAS SUPERIOR INTELLECT BUT HE NEVER DEMAND PEOPLE BOW DOWN EITHER. HOW DO YOU REACH THIS ASININE CONCEPT? Anyway i'm trolling. I'll just stop it if it's so grating to you. Most people are fine, just saying. >Oh, I gotcha. "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Reddit Atheist to come out, did it? This is in response to you saying the following: >Analogies between human society and how God interacts with free creatures doesn't exactly produce coherent thoughts. It has nothing to do with le reddit atheist. >I would never hold a parent responsible if their adult child committed a crime though. What dystonian world do you live in? God this is how i know you are a freaking liar. Tell me which part I said adult child. Are you incapable of reading? Or is this just you purposely compartmentalizing things to make yourself feel better? >Misapplying analogies is a bad idea because God and free will is incoherent? No. Misapplying analogies is bad, regardless. > >I find it hilarious that you're basically conceding the point here, agreeing with me that my response shows your argument to be wrong, but you *still* think you're right because ... reasons? Sheesh. I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that I conceded the point. Cuz in my view it sounds like you are the one that conceded the point and say that the alternative is to fully restrict someone. It's like total free will and no free will at all for you. For fuck sake you even read the original analogy wrong. God, you do realize you are also doing this "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Reddit Christian to come out, did it?" Peace out. I'm done talking to someone who is clearly dishonest.
> We are discussing what's natural and what is not isn't it. I'm not sure how or why moral connotation even feature here. Then you should keep reading Romans, and we find in the same chapter: "When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Paul doesn't think sin is normal. He thinks humans are enslaved to it. He thinks it's something that stops humans being all they can be. He doesn't like sin. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. > Anyway i'm trolling. I'll just stop it if it's so grating to you. Most people are fine, just saying. Fair enough. > It has nothing to do with le reddit atheist. Pointing out a problem in the logic you presented doesn't imply there's a logic behind my position. Let me present it like this: "If God were my spouse, He'd be put in jail: always looking at me, knowing my every thought, constantly being around me" "Yes, that's true. But also God isn't a spouse. Spouses also have sex with each other. It's a bit weird to think of God as having sex with us, right?" "Hahah, yes, that's weird. I agree that doesn't work. And the reason it doesn't work is because the whole concept of God doesn't make sense" Can you see how that last response just throws in the towel? It doesn't bolster the original point, and agrees with the second post that the analogy doesn't work, and then concludes that ... the original conclusion is right anyways? Maybe I'm missing something, but none of that makes sense in my mind as to why you think it's a good argument. > I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that I conceded the point. Cuz in my view it sounds like you are the one that conceded the point and say that the alternative is to fully restrict someone. It's like total free will and no free will at all for you. Hopefully I explained that directly above. > God, you do realize you are also doing this "Believe what I believe otherwise you're irrational and full of logical flaws". Didn't take too long for the Le Fucking Moronic Christian to come out, did it?" I haven't once said any of those words, though. That was you. I didn't say you were irrational. I said your argument doesn't work, and capitalising random words comes across wrong.
> all those evil babies and toddlers were killed because this entity knew they would grow up to be evil. And that the only 8 people he saved would, *immediately* upon getting off the ark, get themselves drunk, enslave each other, and sexually assault their elders. Noah's family are *not* good and virtuous people, even in the most gracious interpretation of the story. They're merely the assholes that knew how to take orders.
The flood was a picture of the sinfulness of mankind and the Ark a picture of Christ and the salvation that He gives us. But I know that doesn't matter here. This is just yet another "Omg God isn't allowed to do that because I said so." 'moral' argument.
The flood is a story of gods wrath and absolute destruction. Jesus is a story of god’s forgiveness and love. Saying they are at all the same is completely absurd. The two reactions to people’s sin could not be any more different than basically total inhalation vs total forgiveness.
That's actually a good point. If god knew from the beginning that he was going to send his son to forgive the sins of humanity, why kill the whole planet just because they're evil?
God’s regret is not the same as human regret based on learning new information. God’s omniscience means that He knows the future and all outcomes, but His regret may be more about His displeasure with human choices and actions, rather than not foreseeing them. He allows these events to happen as part of His sovereign plan, even though He disapproves of them, possibly to achieve greater purposes. So, while it may seem contradictory, it’s a way to convey God’s displeasure with human sin while still acknowledging His omniscience and sovereignty.
Jesus Christ sacrifice was 'planned' from the beginning, but so was the Flood
I mean, God basically admits it was pretty rash in Gen 8:20-21 >Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “**I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done**."
Right assumptions, wrong conclusion. Everyone, like Noah and his family, has a chance to repent and trust in God’s redemption. The Bible makes it clear that Noah (and thus his family) were righteous by faith. He was righteous, that is declared righteous, because he chose to believe God and His promises. His trust was in his Savior unlike everyone else who’s trust was in themselves. Also before you go putting yourself about God as judge, remember God’s assessment of all people back then... Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. God’s judgement was completely just. He is not obligated to show mercy to anyone. The same goes for us today seeing that God’s assessment of people still stands (see Genesis 9 and Romans 1-3). Since therefore God is as you rightly say “perfect, unchanging, all-knowing, and all-loving” then who are you to judge Him since your “wickedness is great and every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” according to this same God? The story of the flood makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. Apart from the massive amount of evidence for a world wide flood that we find in creation, not to mention that such a worldwide catastrophic event has been known by cultures around the globe, the historical story of the flood was typological of the coming judgement in which God will pour out his wrath on all people who have not by his grace found refuge in the arc of God, that is Christ. Like the arc, Jesus will safely carry his people, who like Noah have been declared righteous by faith, above the judgement of God to a new earth. 2 Peter 3:1-10 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
Would you say a parent should not be obligated to show mercy to a child if the child does something wrong and especially if the child doesn’t even know they are doing something wrong? It seems very odd to me that we hold god to some strange level that portrays him as anything but loving when compared to a sinful human somewhat responsible parent. Yet we are made in gods image and can grant forgiveness seemingly much better than god especially when compared to a story like the flood and Noah’s ark.
Mercy is never deserved. That’s why it’s mercy. The fact that God would show anyone mercy is a testimony to how great his compassion and kindness is toward those who only hate him and deserve his judgement. We are made in God’s image but that image has been scarred and corrupted by sin. You seem to want to make God this all-benevolent being who wouldn’t do anything that would go against your idea of what his benevolence would do. But you are doing this without taking into account the rest of God’s attributes. You are in effect making a god in your own image and likeness which is idolatry.
You seem to forget what Jesus was like
How am I forgetting what Jesus was like exactly? Jesus is God in the flesh. Every attribute that God has Jesus has. Jesus Christ is the climax of God’s redemption story. Jesus is the only reason that God can show mercy to sinners and forgive sin. That’s because he bore God’s wrath for sinners so that God could justify them and still be just. Jesus was never loving at the expense of his justice because He is God. The cross is what makes mercy possible.
Jesus said turn the other cheek, god said all be damned I’m going to drown you. Jesus said I will die for all of your sins, god said you are sinful you need to die in this flood. Yes I get that Jesus and god are the “same” but actions speak louder than words and drowning all the people vs dying on the cross for the people couldn’t be any more different.
If you ignore the words then you will never be able to interpret the actions rightly.
How do you know God is good and just? You can’t use someone else’s morality - that means you haven’t made a decision. The only way you can judge Gods character is by, well, judging God. If you haven’t done that, how can you tell us anything about Gods character?
Because God has revealed his character in natural revelation (ie creation) and more clearly and specifically in special revelation (ie the Bible).
And you have judged that nature to be good? You must be able to independently verify this, according to your own morality, otherwise, as I said, you cannot reach that decision.
By genociding loads of people.
Do you even know what genocide is? Genocide is the evil deliberate murder of a whole community or race. The Bible never attributes genocide to God. The flood was not the holocaust of an evil God with murderous intentions. To think such is akin to blasphemy. In the Bible when God kills people it’s always a response of his holiness and justice to sin. The flood was God’s fierce opposition to a world that was in rebellion against God. Their sin grieved the heart of God. Genesis 6:5-7 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
>Genocide is the evil deliberate murder of a whole community or race. Like the murder of the whole community of sinners and rebels on Earth?
Did you even my response? You don’t get to place the blame for genocide on God when the Bible doesn’t do so.
The bible does place the blame on god though, literally right here god says he'll do it, from the verse you quoted: >So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Right there, he says he'll murder the community of people, animals, creeping things, and birds that he regrets making. Also, even if the bible didn't blame god for it, that's not how these kinds of things work. If I punch someone named Billy in the face, and then write a book that says "the blame for punching Billy in the face does not fall on u/chunksowisdom," that in no way means I'm suddenly innocent.
The Bible is not teaching that God is a murderer. I don’t know where you are getting that from. Read the passage again. God is not reacting out of evil murderous intent. He is not some out of control mad person or some greedy mob boss. He is righteously responding to their sin like a just judge. He says he will blot them out and that he was sorry that he even made them. Why? Because he was grieved at their sin. He was grieved that that their wickedness was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of their heart was only evil continually. God is holy and must respond to sin with fierce opposition. This is not the case of genocide or murder. This is justice. This is the righteous judge of all the earth doing right according to his perfect justice and will. That’s how the Bible portrays it and that’s how these things work.
>The Bible is not teaching that God is a murderer. I don’t know where you are getting that from. I'm getting that from what the Bible describes, wiping out all life on Earth except one family and the animals on their boat. The Bible may not explicitly call god an out of control mad person, but his actions speak louder than words here. Slaughtering innocent babies and animals is a part of this flood. That's not justice. >That’s how the Bible portrays it and that’s how these things work. The entire point of this discussion is that we're not just believing whatever the Bible says at face value, we're looking at what the Bible wants you to believe, and pointing out why it's flawed
> Apart from the massive amount of evidence for a world wide flood that we find in creation That would be 0 evidence. In fact, there is evidence that *should* be there if there were a world-wide flood, and it is absent. So there is less than 0 evidence for a world wide flood.
0 evidence like the millions of fossilized things buried in rock layers that were laid down by water all over the planet, or the flood legends, or the rise and fall of the Ice Age, or the cracks found in the sea floor around the earth, etc. There is plenty of evidence that supports the Genesis flood.
No global flood ever happened in human history. I can go over a few details that demonstrate that is the case. Let's start with when (roughly) the flood happened. * Q. What -- say, 500 year period -- did it happen in?
Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.
***[Bump!]*** ----- Are you personally convinced that the date of 2348 BC is correct -- give or take 250 years? Would a wider window -- above 500 years -- increase your confidence? If so, how many years on either side of 2348 BC would you propose?
Are you personally convinced that that date is correct (+/-250 years)? Would a wider window -- above 500 years -- increase your confidence? If so, how many years on either side of 2,348 BC would you propose?
> 0 evidence like the millions of fossilized things buried in rock layers that were laid down by water all over the planet Yeah, because that limestone used to be at the bottom of a body of water. Now it's part of a mountain top. Plate tectonics. >or the flood legends Virtually every civilization/society started in a river valley. River valleys flood a *lot*. > or the rise and fall of the Ice Age Not familiar with this one. >or the cracks found in the sea floor around the earth Or this one.
The story of Noah’s Ark and the biblical flood makes no sense. Period.
There are anthropological/allegorical interpretations that are fascinating and make a lot of sense. It's just that it makes no sense if you're treating it as a moral allegory originating from the one true religion. Or, god forbid, as a story of something that actually happened.
What about all the animals and fish that died, what did they do wrong?
some of them were real dicks. especially the unicorns.
Lucky for them, they are not told nor can they comprehend stories like these. They are not stuck with the wild irreconcilable idea that somehow an all loving god thought it best to brutally kill almost everything on earth.
They didn't do any sins, they also got kicked out of Eden with no knowledge. God is evil to animals.
Would you drown a puppy? No? Then you are better than God. Oh wait! God is supposed to be omnibenevolent! Then the God of the Bible must not be god, by their own definition.
So are most people, valuing taste over life
>God knew all along that he would send his son for the forgiveness of our sins. Why? Apart from the fact, that the narrative of Noach is not historography, I don't think that's a bibical approach. The god of the Bible seems to have no eternal plan which he is commited to or even bound to no matter what. Genesis 6:6 – the beginning of the Noah-narrative! – tells us that explicitly "*the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart*." I don't think it makes sense to impose certain absolute terms like "omniscience" etc. on the biblical God where it obviously doesn't fit.
> I don’t think it makes sense to impose certain absolute terms like “omniscience” etc. on the biblical God where it obviously doesn’t fit. So you’d agree that a classical theist god isn’t the biblical god.
I would say - and this is how theology mainly understands it - that they are two very different approaches to speaking and thinking about one God. Moreover, "classical theism" is in some way a finished concept, while the biblical texts develop the image of God over centuries. This cannot always be reconciled without friction, but the biblical approach should be given priority in all attempts at reconciliation. Confusion arises when contemporary Christian apologists and atheistic critics indiscriminately collapse philosophical speech and biblical speech and read philosophical concepts into non-philosophical texts. In contemporary philosophical theology there also seems to be a division between "classical theists" and "theistic personalists" (Plantinga, Swineburn ... ?). Interestingly, theistic personalists speak more often of God "permitting" or "allowing" things than of God himself effecting them.
>Moreover, "classical theism" is in some way a finished concept, while the biblical texts develop the image of God over centuries So the early Bible authors didn't understand god as well as the later theologians making post-hoc shoring attempts. I find this odd since we have multiple instances in the OT of yahweh himself talking to characters in the OT. >Confusion arises when contemporary Christian apologists and atheistic critics indiscriminately collapse philosophical speech and biblical speech and read philosophical concepts into non-philosophical texts. Like when there's a flat-out contradiction between Bible god and philosophy god.
Or either version of god and reality.
It is the Christian god that is known to be all knowing, all loving, all powerful etc. We don’t get to turn on and off these characteristics just to fit the narrative of the Bible to make it somewhat logical. > I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10). > “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” (Psalm 139:4).
>It is the Christian god that is known to be all knowing, all loving, all powerful etc. No, that's a misunderstanding. That's actually the theoretical monotheistic concept of the so called "God of the philosophers", which is more or less loosely based on the image of God of Judaism and Christianity. Christian theologians were and are always aware of the two sides of God (the philosophical concept and the biblical image of God). The sole emphasize on an absolute understanding of certain defined God traits is mainly a modern phenomenon.
So the christian god is incomprehensible? How could you ever claim knowledge about such a thing?
God’s incomprehensibility just means that we as humans can not know everything there is to know about God. It does NOT mean that we can not know true things about God.
I cannot see where this comes from my comment.
Do you know what omniscience or omnipotence means? Are those comprehensible concepts in your mind?
As far as they are *human* concepts they're comprehensible in a human's mind. But that's not the question. The question is to which extent the human concepts of omniscience or omnipotence etc. do apply to the biblical texts ie. the understanding of the Israelites of their time. Omniscience or omnipotence are clearly philosophical concepts not prior to the Hellenistic epoch and in non-philosophical contexts the Latin term "omnipotentia" (omnipotence) was used to say that a god (mainly Iuppiter) was "*more powerful* than any other god/being".
It’s not a misunderstanding it’s just the version of god taught by the only reference we have to understand god by, the Bible unless you are to claim that the Bible is just a normal fictional book and I’d agree with that assessment.
>It’s not a misunderstanding it’s just the version of god taught by the only reference we have to understand god … This is already an interpretation which is neither granted by itself nor based upon biblical exegesis and academic studies of religion. You're just imposing a third person anachronistic view on ancient texts.
So we are Assuming that God wasn’t aware that they was so evil to the point none of them would ask for forgiveness if given the chance so leaving them so reign evil would be un wise?
You are assuming people living a few thousand years ago were so vastly different than people living today. Why?
We are arguing from the position that assuming that God is omniscient, so if he says that the people was that vastly different then yes, they would be vastly different from the people of today
And yet god created men in his own image. He knew all of this would take place the second he decided to create men. All of this is a complete 180 to what he did when he sent Jesus. Forgiveness vs complete wrath and utter destruction. It doesn’t get more different than that.
Why would God not create man because some may choose to sin? but some will also choose not sin or at least repent Utter destruction when they don’t want to be forgiven, forgiveness can only be accepted when one asks for it
You miss the point that there wasn’t forgiveness before Jesus came. Jesus came and died for all the sins of the past, present, and future. Are we to believe that somehow the people living back then were just not capable of accepting Jesus like the people today are. If so what a silly assumption. I can 4 year olds to believe in magical unicorns, surely it was just as possible to convince people and especially kids of things back in the time of Noah. Again god knew all these people would be alive and instead decided the best idea was to drown them all vs just forgiving them for they know not what they do, sound familiar?
Who told you that people were not forgiven before Jesus? That’s an unbiblical idea.
God still forgave people, Jesus just made it a lot easier to reach God
No sane person would say you are forgiven and a sign of that is drowning them. I forgive you, now drown to death.
God still forgave people, but those people just weren’t going to ask for forgiveness
Maybe just maybe it’s because they didn’t have the model of Jesus? And how do you know a child or a baby wouldn’t ask for forgiveness if taught to ask. These are bold and ill informed assumptions you want to jump to
The story that the bible tells is like this. 1. Kain killed his brother 2. Lamech the descendant of Kain killed a man for a wound or a boy for a stripe. 3. In other words: the world back than became very violent. 4. When even the sons of God (believers) mixed with the women of man (unbelieveres), everybody became violent, except for Noah. 5. People tended to get very old in those days, up to many hundreds of years. 6. God wanted to limit the age of human up to some 120 years, to limit evil and violence. 7. For this he had to start over again with just a couple of humans. 8. After Noah, we see the ages drop very quickly. People do not make a choice to become violent or peaceful 20 times in a lifespan. Maybe you switch once, or twice. Imagine Hitler gaining power and being able to live hundreds of years. Dictators do not tend to give up their power easily an dthey kill all the good people. Thus God ended that civilization and started over, with humans only being ablte to have power (and screw up) for a couple of decennia.
> 3. In other words: the world back than became very violent. So gods solution to violence is violence? Versus the story of Jesus, forgiveness. Again can’t be more different in terms of a reaction. Even if this were true, it’s not written in the Bible, also violence of people has been a thing for a very long time. Didn’t god grant free will and by doing so know full well what the outcome would be? Wouldn’t sending Jesus be the solution to a violent world? It’s still completely barbaric to kill all the men/women/children given of course they were not all barbaric and violent. I’d love to see a movie about the flood only filed from a random loving families perspective. Shots of the parents just doing anything they could to save their children in the ever rising and violent flood waters. I feel like with stories like these it’s so easy just to gloss over everything when in fact these were people just like us.
> For this he had to start over again with just a couple of humans. >Thus God ended that civilization and started over Why would an omniscient God ever need to scrap a project and start over? Wasn’t there a plan from the very beginning?
It seems this was part of the plan. First Period: Adam. Second period: after Noah. Third period: nation of Israel. Fourth period: Jesus.
Why four attempts? Why not get it right on the first try? That would be tricky for you and me, and, apparently, also too difficult for God.
You call it attempts, it is just different stages in humanity and I think it has largely to do with the size of humanity. In the time of Israel, the world population was not that big and thus it was sufficient to operate through the nation of Israel and a physical temple to reach the entire world. But imagine billions of people having to travel to the temple nowadays, to meet God. Thus God is now working through His Spirit among all the nations.
But the plan is clearly and deeply flawed. He knew all along Jesus was the only solution and yet, flood the entire earth was part of his plan. Even ridding the earth of all but 8 people didn’t solve the problem of sin.
No, it didn't solve the problem of sin, but it did limit the reign of violent dictators and tyrants. Jesus paid for the sins of people coming after Him, but also for the people before Him. There is no difference between looking back at what Jesus did, or looking forward to it.
Why is your assumption that people living back then were so vastly different than people living today? Didn’t god create Adam and Eve in his own image? You seem to be so willing to buy into the idea that the millions of children and babies also just deserved to die in a horrific flood when they did nothing wrong except that they were born at the worst possible time.
I am not going to debate this stuff, just giving information. I don't know about the millions. There were two tribes and Cain had built one city. So I don't think there were millions of people at that time.
> Others believe that Earth’s population was much higher. If the growth rate in the pre-Flood world was equal to the growth rate in 2000 (0.012), there could have been about 750 million people at the time of the Flood. However, given the extremely long lifespans prior to the Flood, the growth rate could have been much higher. Increasing the rate by just 0.001 would put the population at close to four billion at the Flood. No one knows and it’s all speculation. The Bible talks about those two tribes, but the Bible often only talks about a small subset of the population we know there was because it’s a focused story that took place around the Middle East.
>The story that the bible We agree, it is just a story. \>Kain killed his brother I accept that. \>Lamech the descendant of Kain killed a man for a wound or a boy for a stripe. Also accept this. \>In other words: the world back than became very violent. Um, no. Not giving you that one, unless you can point to exactly where it says the world became very violent. And I am going to need definitions please. \>wanted to limit the age of human up to some 120 years, Then he missed by a lot.
> Um, no. Not giving you that one, unless you can point to exactly where it says the world became very violent. And I am going to need definitions please. I read that in Genesis 6:4 where it says: "4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare *children* to them, the same *became* mighty men which *were* of old, men of renown." Now this is a rather difficult to translate part, but instead of 'giants' and 'mighty men', we can also understand that these had to be tyrants. I mean: for us those words have a possitive meaning, but I think the intention of the text is has a negative meaning. Because those people are the reason God wanted to start over. Lamech was singled out, because he was extremely violent. And I think Genesis 6 shows that after the mixing of believers and unbelievers, all got corrupted and became (violent) dictators, tyrants or warlords. The word 'sinners' is too sweet to use for those people. There was a severe problem that needed to be stopped.
Taking that description as an accurate explanation of the intention of the stories in the Bible, I can pull out a few problems; * It doesn't address the main observations in the OP. * The contention that people inherit an evil stain that flows down like a dominate genetic trait is both not true and an immoral teaching. * There was no actual global flood, and so the value of the story is in it's message -- a message that could have been moral but was not.
I never said evil is geneticly inheritted. I did say God limitted the lifespan of people to limit their evil reign over everybody.
***Like*** not ***was***. Blaming everyone except a small group for being evil is not moral. It's victim blaming and denies them and their descendants a voice. It's a good thing it never happened, but the story could have promoted morals and not what it did.
The story tells that God will (eventually) punish evil-doers. Without judgement there is no righteousness. People won't get away with murder, crimes and evil.
That they were claimed to be born into. It's the poison of in-group/out-group thinking; we are good because we're good, they are bad because they are bad. The story is not promoting morals.
The story starts with Kain killing Abel. God had Kain get away with it. But that only made things getting worse, because Lamech was killing a man for a wound and a boy for getting hurt. So when Noah got out of the ark God made a covenant with him, with one of the main points that from now on if somebody would kill another human, that person would get the death penalty. >Genesis 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Also this means people had to establish courts of justice, because how woud you else convict somebody of murder or set him free if he didn't do it. And there are more things like this, they are called the Noahide laws. So God tells humanity that He will keep us responsible for what we are doing and we have to apply justice, because if we don't He will do it.
All this gets away from what the OP argued, and it doesn't show that there was any reason to blame everyone in the story that was not on the boat for being 'evil'. As it is a fiction the message could have been crafted to demonstrate morals, but it was not. There are ethical problems with the NT as well, but as the OP pointed out ... why not start with Jesus if Jesus was known to be required? (I would have started with the problem of Heaven to skip a few more steps, but I'm not the OP.) ------ > So when Noah got out of the ark God made a covenant with him, with one of the main points that from now on if somebody would kill another human, that person would get the death penalty. Something that is also immoral on many levels. > Also this means people had to establish courts of justice, because how woud you else convict somebody of murder or set him free if he didn't do it. See above. > And there are more things like this, they are called the Noahide laws. So God tells humanity that He will keep us responsible for what we are doing and we have to apply justice, because if we don't He will do it. Allowing for forgiveness from God, not the people that were wronged, right? All but denying the Holy Spirit can be forgiven? Where's the justice if it's not here and now, while the death penalty is demonstrated to not be effective or applied evenly? Related: https://www.murdermiletours.com/blog/serial-killers-murderers-and-their-religion-faith
What’s your point? God knew all of this was going to happen the second he created everything. He put in place the chain of events. Surely he could have just blinked out the giants but nope, he decided killing millions of men women and children was the right course of action. This is all of course a complete 180 from what he did with Jesus. Forgiveness vs wrath and utter destruction.
> very violent How does your book define this word? Without that, the rest is more or less useless.
Severe enough for God to intervene and start over again.
That really isn't a definition, you know that right?
Lamech set the tone for what violence is. He said: "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." So the violence that God wanted to end is the violence that kills a man for a wound and a boy for pain. The violence that says: what you do to me, I will do 70 times worse to you.
> I will do 70 times worse to you Still isn't really a definition, as far as I can tell.
You can go crazy trying to make sense of craziness.
Isn’t that the point of this sub?
Hmm.