quote:Except that if your parents, your neighbors, and everyone around you is busy killing each other why the devil would God want his children to have to suffer being born into such an environment?
You have only the accused's word for this. Moreover, the accused claims to be omnipotent, and at one time apparently was able to kill only firstborn sons of a particular ethnicity over a large area. It could hardly be very difficult to kill only the guilty ones, then. And, by the way, the accused apparently has absolutely no problem with children being born into areas ravaged by disease, hunger, and parasites.
Further, I think you would not accept any such argument in a contemporary abortion debate, so why would you accept it here? Or do you think that abortion is justified if the fetus would grow up to have a really terrible and unloved life?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB: Do you know whether the people of earth would have listened? Seems at best they would have stopped temporarily and simply relapsed back into killing.
KOM: Of course I only have the accused's word, if I thought God was capable of being dishonest I probably would not worship him as the paragon of all that is good would I? Whose word do you have? I have already admitted that I am leaving the complete explanation to God, all you get from me is my opinion.
quote: and at one time apparently was able to kill only firstborn sons of a particular ethnicity over a large area.
I think you mean CHOSE to do things that way, there is no evidence of powerlessness on God's part. You are also assuming that God killed all the first born sons for the exact same reason he killed everyone in the flood save Noah. I have absolutely no evidence of God's motives when it came to Moses and his dealings in Egypt. But I do have God making statements regarding why he flooded the earth.
Ditto to your argument about disease, hunger, parasites. All I can surmise is that God wishes to give men free will as much as possible, and when humanity it totally steeped in evil like in Noah's day he had no other recourse then to start over. For whatever reason that situation has not existed since then.
OK KOM lets say the world was in fact as the scripture say it is and everyone in the world save Noah's family were as evil as evil can be. What is your solution?
edit: sorry,
quote:t could hardly be very difficult to kill only the guilty ones, then
Which is exactly what God did. Would you expect him to simply off the parents and let the children all starve to death, or get eaten by wild beasts? How could anybody live a happy life without any parents or neighbors nearby to help them as they grew?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: DB: Do you know whether the people of earth would have listened? Seems at best they would have stopped temporarily and simply relapsed back into killing.
Like we have again? Assuming a literal interpretation, surely God knew that this wouldn't work. That is was only a temporary fix.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, religiously Mormons believe we are pretty close to the same situation and getting ripe for destruction. In fact, that is what the Book of Mormon is about - the more wicked society becomes the more it will be wiped out one way or another. It was a temporary fix to save as many as possible before the next temporary fix. At least that is how I see it.
As for the relapse that you and BlackB are discussing, its the difference between a relapse of one generation and a relapse of several generations.
As for what God does, He can do whatever He wants. He is God.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you mean CHOSE to do things that way, there is no evidence of powerlessness on God's part.
I think you misread my statement - I didn't mean that your god was able only to kill a few people, but that it was able to kill an extremely specific subset of people. I was indicating power, not powerlessness.
quote:Which is exactly what God did. Would you expect him to simply off the parents and let the children all starve to death, or get eaten by wild beasts?
This is the god that allegedly fed the Israelites on manna in the desert for forty years; supplying some loaves and fishes should not be too difficult.
You are forgetting that you are dealing with an omnipotent god here; there is no difficulty it cannot overcome. Therefore, if it kills innocent children, it is not because it has no choice in the matter; it is precisely because it chooses to kill those children. You may, therefore, argue that such a choice was righteous and just, and good luck to you; or you may argue that the children were not so innocent and therefore deserved their fate (truly, a disgusting argument, but a logical possibility); but any merely practical difficulty such as this is a non-starter.
quote:I have already admitted that I am leaving the complete explanation to God, all you get from me is my opinion.
Since it's you I'm arguing with, I can pass on the god-explanation, thanks, at least until your god becomes a member of Hatrack. I'm not interested in how your god justifies itself; I'm interested in how you justify it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: DB: Do you know whether the people of earth would have listened? Seems at best they would have stopped temporarily and simply relapsed back into killing.
Like we have again? Assuming a literal interpretation, surely God knew that this wouldn't work. That is was only a temporary fix.
Occasional did a pretty good job of summing up. Though I would argue that we are not even close to having EVERY single human being save a family of about 8, wanting every other human being dead.
If the end of the world takes place I believe there are going to be millions of people saved, not just eight. Shoot even folks like KOM who I have every reason to believe honestly does not believe in God does not qualify as, "ripe for destruction."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for what God does, He can do whatever He wants. He is God.
Certainly it has the power to do so; but that does not make its every act just and righteous. Power does not justice make. If you are indeed arguing that an act is righteous, independent of what the act actually is, just because your god committed it, then you are deep into the Fuhrer-fallacy and might as well worship Satan.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is the god that allegedly fed the Israelites on manna in the desert for forty years; supplying some loaves and fishes should not be too difficult.
You are forgetting that you are dealing with an omnipotent god here; there is no difficulty it cannot overcome. Therefore, if it kills innocent children, it is not because it has no choice in the matter; it is precisely because it chooses to kill those children. You may, therefore, argue that such a choice was righteous and just, and good luck to you; or you may argue that the children were not so innocent and therefore deserved their fate (truly, a disgusting argument, but a logical possibility); but any merely practical difficulty such as this is a non-starter.
"Man does not live on bread alone." KOM. If God is simply feeding them and tutoring himself all the time their freewill is tampered with. Perhaps God took your idea to heart and decided he could raise the children better himself. Were I a child of that time I would certainly accept the pains of drowning for the chance to actually live a real existence.
You will note the New Testament states that Jesus during the 3 days between crucifixion and resurrection visited the folks who died in the time of Noah and could not learn the gospel and personally taught them.
quote: Since it's you I'm arguing with, I can pass on the god-explanation, thanks, at least until your god becomes a member of Hatrack.
I lol'd KOM, just wanted you to realize that I might MISUNDERSTAND God's reasoning or motives. Ill have to continue this conversation later as I need to go pick up my wife.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You hear that, KoM? Even dastardly folks like people who don't believe in God might not be ripe for destruction!
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh! Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, don't it, Tom?
quote:If God is simply feeding them and tutoring himself all the time their freewill is tampered with. Perhaps God took your idea to heart and decided he could raise the children better himself. Were I a child of that time I would certainly accept the pains of drowning for the chance to actually live a real existence.
Easy to say sitting in front of a keyboard with no chance of drowning in the immediate future, not to mention killing off your parents. Oddly enough, even violent people are loved by their children. The freewill argument applies just as well to taking children into heaven as to feeding them on earth, if not more so. And, dude, killing them doesn't interfere with free will? If there's any more ultimate interference than that, it's sure lost on me. Anyway, why not just blip the parents around to be nice kind robots who would raise their children well? Sure, their free will is gone, but then again the god is about to kill them and throw them into hell, which also kind of interferes with their choices. That leaves the innocents unharmed and much better off.
Again: Your god obviously had any number of alternatives. If it killed children, it is precisely because it chose to do so. All the reasons you have raised thus far for thinking it a just choice have been, frankly, rather silly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I am in the camp where death is not considered the worst thing in the world. It hurts, but its not the worst. If God wants to kill innocent people along with the wicked that is His obligation. More than likely they will recieved a better reward than this life that makes their temporary death and pain nothing. As life teaches us with or without the flood, the innocent suffer along with the wicked in all natural destructions. That doesn't mean He is wicked. It means He cares about other things.
P.S. For Mormons Hell means something entirely different than the traditional view. That might have gotten you confused a bit. Not that I think it matters to you.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I was not suggesting atheist are "dastardly" I doubt you believe I was, merely that the a common traditional fallacy that non believers go straight to hell is not the case. I didn't want to be accused of believing that so I answered the possibility in advance. Was I wrong to have done so?
KOM: I don't think you understand the Mormon doctrines concerning the afterlife. I believe that when folks die they life in a spirit world. It is there that folks who never knew the truth are instructed as to its particulars and given a legitimate choice between good and evil. I have no idea what it looks like, what its like to live there, only that God doesn't run around there just as he doesn't run around on earth.
I didn't say God DOESN'T EVER interfere with freewill, I said he is loathe to do so. In order to salvage the fair choice of billions of people God eliminated a much smaller group of people who would have unfortunately continued on in their evil ways with no reason to believe their children would be raised knowing what righteousness even was.
Again you seemed to miss the part about Jesus preaching to the folks who died during Noah's time. It says nothing about sending them all straight to hell in fact it says the opposite. Its just as reasonable to assume that if humanity reached a point where 99.9% of folks were doing only evil that it was a long process before completion, its just as likely that the children we mentioned had parents, grandparents, great grandparents who were all short changed by their ancestor. Who knows how far back the problem was.
You need to understand that even somebody who is intentionally wicked, to a Mormon that does not necessarily mean an eternity in hell. According to Mormons God may judge you but its all up to YOU where you wish to end up. Folks who just were not trying would not want to live in heaven as they would feel ashamed, they would much rather life in a lesser kingdom with others who are of similar character. I've told you this before God does not send people to either heaven or hell, the entire human race cannot be sorted that easily.
I hope that answers your scenarios, so far I am unconvinced of any alternatives to God's plan you have suggested.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, as far as I know (in reference to my previous post) God has not, at any time, appeared simultaneously to all human beings and told us to knock it off. I have a feeling that he'd get our attention through such a strategy in a way that, assuming he exists, he hasn't achieved to this point.
And please, don't spout the whole free will thing to me... his appearance would not interfere with our free will any more than his killing 99.999999% of humanity, or expelling the only humans from paradise, or sending his son/incarnating himself. When you pile oral tradition upon oral tradition, however, this is the sort of fallacious view you derive— that God has some bizarre, nebulous plan for humanity that entails apparent cruelty, disingenuousness and obscurantism. Blech.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, there is something insidiously evil about the idea that the real problem with an incerdibly immoral society is that God will punish you for it.
If there really were a society in which everyone ran around killing everyone else and everyone hated their own blood, there would be no need to send a flood to wipe them out. All God would have to do is give sanctuary to the righteous and wait for the inevitible catastrophic collapse of that society. De-coupling the pretty basic cause and effect chain here so that potential success or failure is a function of whether God is pissed at you or not makes no sene to me and is one of those aspects that makes the OT God an evil one to me.
I've got plenty of other problems with the implications of this myth, but I am also troubled by how stupid it is as a literal story where you've got a self-sustaining society like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Something drastic... how about appearing in the sky above earth and saying, "Hey! Knock this crap off before I kill you all!"
A little advance warning would've been nice...
Actually, God did warn people. Just because it's not written there doesn't mean He didn't do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB: What Lisa said. But based on scriptural history there HAVE been incidents where God told people in essence to KNOCK IT OFF and it often has no effect, in fact the people become more evil as now they are guilty of ignoring God to His face. But then again justifying the point with histories you are not aware of, much less believe seems kind of futile.
Mr S:
quote:f there really were a society in which everyone ran around killing everyone else and everyone hated their own blood, there would be no need to send a flood to wipe them out. All God would have to do is give sanctuary to the righteous and wait for the inevitible catastrophic collapse of that society.
Ergo Noah's family in an ark in the middle of a flood that caused the catastrophic collapse of the evil societies.
quote:I've got plenty of other problems with the implications of this myth, but I am also troubled by how stupid it is as a literal story where you've got a self-sustaining society like this.
Alittle more respect please, I'm discussing your points without calling any of them stupid. If I can let you try to outsmart God without being rude, you can please allow me to defend Him without calling the fact that I do "stupid."
I disagree with you, I think that human beings are quite capable of gross degeneracy and can still survive. Unfortunately it's not God's agenda that men live on earth merely to see how long they can manage it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ergo Noah's family in an ark in the middle of a flood that caused the catastrophic collapse of the evil societies.
And that's my problem. The flood was completely unnecessary to destroy the society described by people here. It would have died out in a generation (assuming that it was ever even possible for it to form), with no divine intervention necessary.
While societies can support a certain amount of degeneracy, complex ones such as the one described in the Noah myth cannot survive with total, unredeemable evil from all members of society going on. It is completely impossible. This is the group dynamicist's version of the earth being flat.
Trying to pass this myth off as any sort of realistic description of history is like trying to claim that a child's crayon drawing is actually a photograph. And, I really don't know a better description for that besides stupid.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: So you think its better that all the people take hundreds of years to totally wipe each other out before God starts over? What evidence do you have that there would not have simply been remnants geographically to far apart from each other to really interact. You could still have units localized in some random jungle continuing living in their iniquity.
quote: Trying to pass this myth off as any sort of realistic description of history is like trying to claim that a child's crayon drawing is actually a photograph. And, I really don't know a better description for that besides stupid.
If your view point is so obviously true to you perhaps you should consider that I have probably thought my viewpoint over just as long as you have and yet do not find it stupid.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Let me explain what everyone is saying about what Ron is saying.
Ron states X is true for everyone and should be obvious.
The agnostics and aethists say, Um, its not obvious and we don't see how it is true. Please quit messing with Science/history/languages
Ron replies, In Daniel (or some other book that is both Old Testament and Torah), it clearly proves X.
Where Lisa and others of the Jewish faith say, It does not prove that. It does not say that. Please quit messing with my faith.
Ron replies, Well all Christians obviously believe Y which proves Daniel said what I said he said to mean that X is true.
Where a lot of Christians look confused at each other and say, we don't believe that. Please quit messing with our faith.
Now Ron replied with, if you study theology of the Christian faith than you will see that everyone agrees with Z which means we all beleive in Y that proves my points in Daniel which proves--what was I proving again?
Now DKW, a studier of theology of the Christian faith replies, not so.
quote:So you think its better that all the people take hundreds of years to totally wipe each other out before God starts over? What evidence do you have that there would not have simply been remnants geographically to far apart from each other to really interact. You could still have units localized in some random jungle continuing living in their iniquity.
You'd have maybe isolated people, but units? No, they hated and killed their children. Killing your progeny is a real good way not to be around any more. And isolated people don't survive.
BB, I really don't care how long you say you've thought about this (edit: and actually, how much consideration have you really given to the plausibility of the societies described in the Noah story?) . That's never been something I've put a lot of stock in in terms of whether a belief could be true or not. Some of the people who claimed that they knew the earth was flat thought a lot about it. People thought a lot about a lot of things that turned out to be completely and totally wrong.
What you are claiming is not in any way, shape, or form possible under the way the world currently works. If you want to say that God changed how basic fundamental concepts worked between now and then, I can't argue with that. But the Noah story describing a historical situation in the same world we currently live in is not possible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Trying to pass this myth off as any sort of realistic description of history is like trying to claim that a child's crayon drawing is actually a photograph. And, I really don't know a better description for that besides stupid.
And yet it actually happened that way. So I guess it isn't stupid at all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
edit: I'm a huge fan and student of mythologies. They provide a completely necessary structure to unfixed aspects of the world and allow for the construction of complex structures and systems of thought. I may personally find many aspects of the mythology of the OT to be evil, but that's just my opinion. You do damage to this exteremely important aspect of myths, as well as to so many other things, when you try to assert that they are literally true, especially in the face of their sheer impossibility.
Regular impossibility I don't really have a problem with. Who am I to say that miracles don't happen? However, when the incredilby simplistic, non-focused on background of the myth that you are claiming is true is literally impossible, I think you need to rethink your "This actually happened approach."
posted
Perhaps some here would appreciate it if I were to preface some of my remarks by saying, "This is A Christian viewpoint," or "This is a viewpoint held by many Christians," or "Anyone who reads the Scripture can see for themselves this is what it plainly says" (pardon the exasperation), though I am sure many would take exception even to that. I do present arguments in support of the positions I take, you know--usually plain statements of Scripture that directly speak to the subject at hand.
***************
Concerning the cavil some have raised that God did not adequately warn the Antedeluvians about the coming Flood: The Bible indicates that Noah preached of the impending Flood for at least 100 years. And he was a man who had great status, as one of the very aged people on earth, and associated with him were others like Methuselah, who lived longer than any man ever had before. Noah and his sons and friends like Methuselah (who died the year of the Flood) were busy building a huge boat way out on dry land, for over 100 years. This had to serve as a constant testimonial.
Personally, I think that probably many people were impressed by Noah's preaching, and would have joined him, but they were forcibly restrained, perhaps even killed, by their peers. The Bible says that one of the reasons why God brought the Flood was because "the earth was filled with violence." I would suggest that was violence against the people who would be faithful to God. This is the kind of violence that has always been most offensive to God.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You'd have maybe isolated people, but units? No, they hated and killed their children.
I know that's been suggested, but I don't think it's necessarily true.
Regardless, God was in a position to know that the proper thing to do at the time was to start over. Stop backseat driving. It's particularly silly when the event happened so long ago.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What you are claiming is not in any way, shape, or form possible under the way the world currently works.
Maybe. But who says that everything then was the way it is now? I know you'd like to think that, because it makes the world a lot more comfortable. It means that you can rely on the world being tomorrow pretty much the way it is today. That's a pleasant thought.
But people were also living several centuries back then. So clearly the world was not the same then as it is now.
Your argument has nothing to do with the specific stories in the Bible. It is 100% "I insist that the world has always operated according to the rules I see now". If you accept that assertion, then there was no Flood, Noah wasn't 600 years old, there were no Plagues in Egypt, no Revelation... basically, it's all a crock. Clearly. That follows logically from your premise.
Without that premise, though, you don't really have a lot of basis for your rude dismissal of the Flood. So rather than bash, why not discuss the underlying dispute?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you want to say that God changed how basic fundamental concepts worked between now and then, I can't argue with that.
Indeed.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But the Noah story describing a historical situation in the same world we currently live in is not possible.
No one said otherwise.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world today is substantially different from the way it was before the Flood, but still that does not mean there are not valid parallels to be drawn. It is the same human nature, the same principle of sin and rebellion against God, and the same righteousness of God being manifested in His agents that we see in contention throughout all history.
Bible prophecy (in Revelation 9:15-18; 13:15; as well as other places) indicates that in the final time of test in the time of the end, there will be a vast military campaign waged against all who would be faithful to God. And Genesis 6:11 says of the antedeluvians: "Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence." If the earth being "filled with violence" was part of the reason why God ended the antedeluvian world, then a similar thing, where the earth is filled with volence will be one of the reasons why God will bring an end to the world for a second time.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Perhaps some here would appreciate it if I were to preface some of my remarks by saying, "This is A Christian viewpoint," or "This is a viewpoint held by many Christians," or "Anyone who reads the Scripture can see for themselves this is what it plainly says" (pardon the exasperation), though I am sure many would take exception even to that. I do present arguments in support of the positions I take, you know--usually plain statements of Scripture that directly speak to the subject at hand.
That would be better. I would prefer "some" to "many" in the second example and I appreciate the emphasis on the "A" in the first example. As for the third example, I would say that Scripture isn't always as "plain" as you make it out to be, so it would depend on what part of Scripture was being discussed.
********************
For the record: To me, the concept of God wiping everyone out in order to "start over" is incompatible with a God that loves each of us as a parent. A Christian view is that the flood was a natural or regional occurance that got worked into the mythology of various cultures.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And Genesis 6:11 says of the antedeluvians: "Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence." If the earth being "filled with violence" was part of the reason why God ended the antedeluvian world, then a similar thing, where the earth is filled with volence will be one of the reasons why God will bring an end to the world for a second time.
It might interest you to know that the Hebrew says the world was filled with Hamas. That's the word that's translated as "violence". Ironic, no?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I know. And the world is flat.
Actually, it's not.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: edit: I'm a huge fan and student of mythologies. They provide a completely necessary structure to unfixed aspects of the world and allow for the construction of complex structures and systems of thought. I may personally find many aspects of the mythology of the OT to be evil, but that's just my opinion. You do damage to this exteremely important aspect of myths, as well as to so many other things, when you try to assert that they are literally true, especially in the face of their sheer impossibility.
Because you've defined them as myths. <shrug> Good for you. But that's just an assertion. At most, it's a conclusion from your axiom that the world is the same now as it was then. But why do you think anyone who doesn't share your premises is going to accept the conclusions you draw from them?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Regular impossibility I don't really have a problem with. Who am I to say that miracles don't happen? However, when the incredilby simplistic, non-focused on background of the myth that you are claiming is true is literally impossible, I think you need to rethink your "This actually happened approach."
Thanks for the advice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I have been saying for many years that fiction that faithfully presents the spiritual realities of human nature, sin, and righteousness, is fiction that tells the truth in the broad sense, and at least has a chance to be worthwhile reading even for the most conservative religious person, in my view (some fundamentalists believe that fiction itself is bad, but I differ). On the other hand, there is fiction that does not tell the truth, but lies about life's verities. An example I used in the past was the old Gor novels by John Norman, which presented as if it were true the idea that women secretly want and need to be enslaved. These novels were cited in at least one court case I heard of where someone was being prosecuted for kidnapping and chaining up women and abusing them. Apparently the miscreant claimed he had been influenced by these novels. I do not remember how the case came out. But those are definitely books I would not want to be available in my community's school library.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You'd have maybe isolated people, but units? No, they hated and killed their children. Killing your progeny is a real good way not to be around any more. And isolated people don't survive.
Who said they hated their children across the board?
Perhaps clans were concerned with nothing but the destruction of all neighboring clans by the time of the flood. Perhaps children grew up in sin and it was common to kill your own parents, you can always kill your parents and still perpetuate.
I'm not arguing that there is a long term sustainability in a world that is "filled with violence." But I think you are mistaken in thinking that a violent culture can only survive one generation.
If I wish to kill everyone except MAYBE my wife and at least one of my children, I am STILL a violent person, living in gross wickedness.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who said they hated their children across the board?
You did, right here:
quote:everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
And if they didn't, why then that's just regular ol' human killing of other tribes, and clearly not a problem.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[No one has actually addressed the fact that God himself has never appeared like in the clouds simultaneously to all human beings and told them to knock their stupid crap off... people preaching about it and telling others what God supposedly said could obviously be the work of crackpots, so you are expecting them to believe second hand info rather than God's direct dialogue with humanity...]
I'm willing for a second to posit the truth of the Flood, but nothing that anyone's said makes me feel that God was justified in doing what he did, especially as he knew in advance that humanity would end up that way if he created it, and he could have tweaked events so no Flood was needed. It makes God seem petty, cruel and frankly short-sighted, which doesn't quite jibe with what Jews and Christian would have me believe about him.
Going back to my view, that the Flood is a mythological event, God's behavior in that tale and throughout the Bible is inconsistent, and bespeaks the cobbled-together nature of the work itself.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Even if some of the people killed their own children, that does not mean it was how EVERY single family unit was. There are plenty of niches in a family. Even if you hate your children you can simply abuse them so that they will continue your line but not kill them. You may or may not be successful in the attempt. Surely you can agree that "hating your own blood" does not neccesarily mean JUST children.
quote: 'm willing for a second to posit the truth of the Flood, but nothing that anyone's said makes me feel that God was justified in doing what he did, especially as he knew in advance that humanity would end up that way if he created it, and he could have tweaked events so no Flood was needed. It makes God seem petty, cruel and frankly short-sighted, which doesn't quite jibe with what Jews and Christian would have me believe about him.
Again you may call it short sightedness I see it as infinitely LONG sightedness. You keep saying, "Well if God can do all that CAN be done, why didn't he just tweek things." What do you mean by that, its too generic. I've yet to hear an alternate solution that accomplishes the same end more effectively.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you mean by that, its too generic. I've yet to hear an alternate solution that accomplishes the same end more effectively.
Kill off the wicked adults with a good selective plague, or just, y'know, smite 'em. Send angels to feed the children until they can take care of themselves, and teach them righteousness at the same time. Ta-dah!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: That doesn't work. You can't have constant angelic administration, and shoot if they get to have it why can't I? Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together? Would you honestly prefer to remain on earth alone the rest of your days?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together?
By "administered to," it's worth remembering that you mean "slaughtered."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together?
By "administered to," it's worth remembering that you mean "slaughtered."
Tom I'm tiring of your "looking to be offended/offensiveness." Maybe you are not trying to come off that way but your last few posts have been snarky to me.
For the third time, the people were not killed and shipped off to hell. They were taken to the afterlife where they were ultimately taught what they were completely ignorant of. Its pretty hard to learn about, "God is love and he is sending his son to die for your sins" when you have to focus on who is coming to kill you all the time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They were taken to the afterlife where they were ultimately taught what they were completely ignorant of.
But if this is no worse than being alive, why do we bother to live in the first place?
Well for one thing to as much as is possible, decide in an unbiased way whether we prefer to live virtuously or otherwise. There is also the unrelated yet significant concept that to become like God a soul needs to obtain a physical body. But I'd rather not discuss that particular doctrine as its quite complicated and more suited to another thread.
We are being tested based on what truth we DO posses, so that we might have joy in our choices or sorrow, depending on which we elect to have.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, assuming this theorizing of yours about the fate of dead antediluvians is true, why not teach them here on earth rather than kill them and teach them in the spirit world? Seems pretty... er, silly.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
They demonstrated an unwillingness to be taught as Noah and others were time and time again rejected by them. It was a long process that lead the entire human race to become so entirely evil. Here are some verses,
Read from verse 14 until the end of the chapter. I know its a bit, but I think it will show you a dynamic of God rarely seen in other scriptures.
I think that will help you understand my perspective on this matter.
Lisa: Don't be confused by the link, its a long excerpt from Joseph Smith's translation of the book of Genesis. The text will not agree with your traditional translation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: BB, assuming this theorizing of yours about the fate of dead antediluvians is true, why not teach them here on earth rather than kill them and teach them in the spirit world? Seems pretty... er, silly.
You sound like someone asking Minnesota Fats why he's shooting the cue ball in that direction when the balls he called are way over here.
When you know everything God knows, then you can ask a question like that. He did it because it's for the best. Because that's how the optimum result is arrived at. Because doing it your way might have gotten some short term gains, but would have caused worse things later. Whatever.
And to reiterate what Occasional said above, this life isn't all there is. To you, people dying is the worst thing, because this is all there is. To us, this is a tiny fraction of the whole story. That doesn't mean that we don't treasure our life here, but when you start talking about things from the perspective of God, it's not as though it was the catastrophe that you see it as.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got no problem with believing God created the Great Flood to wipe out civilization. Or, alternatively, that there was a Great Flood that occurred naturally along about the same time as civilization was forgetting God's ways, and that He did not stop it.
I also have no problem with believing there were pockets of civilization and righteous people that He saved.
KoM-- doctrinally speaking, from a Mormon standpoint, it was not in God's ability to send angels down to earth to diaper every little orphan, wipe every runny nose, etc. after the flood. There's the free will thing that BB mentioned-- also, in Mormon theology, angels could not (normally) possess corporeal bodies until after the ressurrection of Jesus Christ. (Moses and Elijah being exceptions-- also, not being "angels" in the classic sense of the word)
God cannot do everything that we imagine He can do.
quote:assuming this theorizing of yours about the fate of dead antediluvians is true, why not teach them here on earth rather than kill them and teach them in the spirit world? Seems pretty... er, silly.
First, I'm glad to see you back, David.
Noah DID try to teach them.
In any case, a large majority of the earth's inhabitants are going to be taught the gospel in the spirit world.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: That doesn't work. You can't have constant angelic administration, and shoot if they get to have it why can't I?
Because your parents were not so wicked as to cause the whole of humanity to be killed off. Congratulations. And you certainly can have constant angelic administration.
quote:Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together?
Well, obviously you aren't particularly concerned with their fate, true. Personally, I have ethical qualms with killing off children for the deeds of their parents, on the mere grounds of convenience for me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because your parents were not so wicked as to cause the whole of humanity to be killed off. Congratulations. And you certainly can have constant angelic administration.
So they get the angelic administration in the next life, why are you so worried about them remaining on earth? And yes I can get constant angelic administration if I am virtuous enough, unfortunately that is not the case. You seem to be arguing that if my parents become sinful enough then I get the BONUS of angelic administration. By that logic I could justify evil behavior as it would insure my own children's happiness in the long run.
quote: Well, obviously you aren't particularly concerned with their fate, true. Personally, I have ethical qualms with killing off children for the deeds of their parents, on the mere grounds of convenience for me.
YOU have qualms, but from my perspective what is so bad about God mercifully stopping the madness before any more future children were harmed? You are trying to prove to me that God made a mistake based on MY understanding of the situation. If I was in your position and none of this was a given of course I could very easily reach the same conclusion you have.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you know everything God knows, then you can ask a question like that.
Not a good parenting technique, btw. If I tried that with my kids ["When you know all I know, then you can ask me questions! Till then, pipe down."] I can imagine I'd be doing them a pretty big disservice. Strange that Man seems more moral than his God.
quote:To you, people dying is the worst thing, because this is all there is.
I'll refrain from wondering how you think you know what I think is the "worst thing" and simply say that you are wrong. To me, the worst thing is dedicating your life bending your knee to a being that doesn't even abide by the rules he forces you to follow. Death is just another insult in such a regime.
----- People who've asked, "What could God have 'tweaked' so as not to have a planetful of evil s.o.b.s?": He could have kept alive his personal relationship with them despite Adam and Eve's actions. He could have engineered beings that would derive less pleasure from evil. He could have sent a messiah THEN. He could inspired men in every community with direction communication rather than just one man. Heck, I could go on like this forever. And frankly, any God whose planning is so mindbendingly complex that it requires slaughter (many other passages in Tanakh/Old Testament spring to mind) and cruelty is too immoral for me to worship. This is why I have the shocking position that if I find out that good ol' Tetragrammaton is the real author of the universe, I will heroically accept hellfire or extinguishing or whatever rather than bend my knee to his despotism... I know that is harsh, but it is really how I feel. Sorry! Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
David: So rather then live with God who you deem too cruel you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
Your solutions that you ratted off also make little sense. I am sure you could go on forever throwing out halfbaked ideas that sound nice but don't work. God DID keep his personal relationship alive in post eden Adam and Eve. But he cannot make us listen to him. He cannot create humans that are less disposed to seek pleasure from evil as people are people, they, like God, have their own disposition and free agency. A Messiah then? Ok Jesus comes, gets killed, ressurects, and all without instituting a church or establishing his goslep because nobody believes in him. Jesus did not MAKE people good, he could only influence them to be better. In fact you will note there were cities where he could not perform any miracles because nobody had faith in him.
You keep saying to the effect, "Well God could have just forced them to be good." If you can have entities like the devil who hate God to his face, and entities like Jesus we can all fit in there somewhere in the middle. If you don't think that people can choose evil so completely that they would reject God to his face, I really think you and I have different perspectives on human capability.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Dan
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
