Did God drown his Jewish creation including in Noah's ark?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 37
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation, including zygotes and babies in his great Flood Scenario  according to Genesis 7.

I would suggest that this statement is absurdly put.  In the first place the Jewish nation did not come into existence until hundreds of years after Noah's Flood.  Jacob who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, was the first one called Israel.  It was not until many years later that the Israelite nations were known as Jews.  Whoever were killed at the time of the great flood, it was not the Hebrew Creation. 

But leaving that silly statement aside for one moment,   for the sake of the sake of the argument, let us assume for a moment that Noah was a Jew. Did God kill the entire Jewish creation? And the answer again must be no. 

The story of Noah's Ark is a picture of salvation for 8 persons and thousands of animals.   To say the Entire Jewish Creation was horribly drowned is therefore an over reach. 

But again let us leave even this picture of salvation aside - for the sake of the argument,  let us ask the question whether there were zygotes and babies who drowned during the flood? 

And the answer is most likely yes. Did they drown horribly? It certainly is very likely. 

So if Noah's flood occurred, literally, and it covered the entire earth, and only 8 people and thousands of animals survived, is it likely that many people - perhaps millions drowned horribly? And my answer would be yes it is very likely. I am sure some would have died by other means - but most would have drowned and I cannot imagine drowning to be a fun affair? Would the zgotes have drowned?  I can't say. Most likely their mother's drowned and they lost the ability to keep breathing. It really does not matter how it is spun, the fact is - it would have been horrible - nasty. Incredibly brutal and cruel. There is no getting around this. 

The next question that arises is did God do it? Did God drown them? And the answer is yes. God did.  

So does this make God a murderer? Does this make what God did wrong? 

And I would say no. Murder is a technical term. It is distinguished from killing. It is distinguished from self defence. It is distinguished from lawful punishment. 

No one is saying God came down from heaven and literally forced people's heads into the water. 

The question really comes down to whether it was lawful for God to put all of these people to death. And the answer is found in Genesis 6:6-7. 

"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 continuously." So the Lord said I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, man, animals and creeping things, birds of the air - for I am sorry that I have made them". 

Two really important things here provide an answer for us.  God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them. 

If he had not made them, he may not have had lawful grounds to destroy them. But they were his possessions and he has the legal right over them to destroy them. Secondly, they were evil- continuously. This was his reason for destroying them. It is not like God looked down at the earth and thought - how lovely they are - all doing the right thing and being so nice - and so  I will therefore kill them. 

No, God destroyed the creation as it was then known on the basis of the fact that it was evil to its heart - and also on the basis that he had jurisdiction to do so because he had made the earth and all in it. 

I will aside the other technical issue of murder being something that only humans are able to do anyway. But the point is - God's actions on that day were lawful. Some might say - well even if they were lawful, it was cruel and unusual punishment. And my response to that is - all forms of capital punishment are according to some - cruel and unusual. 

The evil being committed by the people at that time was monsterous and evil. Imagine an entire nation of pedaphiles. And only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of the Lord. 

Now I accept some will reject my  reasoning for why I say God's act was lawful. I have provided my justifications for it. God saw their hearts and knew they evil. And secondly, he made them, giving him total jurisdiction. 

To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment. 


#2
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment. 
Alternatively, you can dismiss it by acknowledging there is literally no evidence that this story, any one part if it, is in any way factual, and that there's still no evidence that the character in question even exists, right? That seems to be an easier option.
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,

Let us see when and who has   suggested that god  drowned  "the entire Jewish nation"? 
Topic's author
#4
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment. 
Alternatively, you can dismiss it by acknowledging there is literally no evidence that this story, any one part if it, is in any way factual, and that there's still no evidence that the character in question even exists, right? That seems to be an easier option.
But you see dear Ludo, 

I am not arguing that the story is literal. I never have. People make many assumptions - sometimes I run with a discussion to see where it goes. But I have never once argued - at least here on this forum in the recent past that it needs to be taken literally. 

My particular intention with these questions and responses is to demonstrate that the character of God as described in the Bible is not vile or cruel or evil. But  rather is one who is good and just and perfect in what he does. 
Topic's author
#5
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,

Let us see when and who has   suggested that god  drowned  "the entire Jewish nation"? 
No. This does not address or answer the question or the topic. 


#6
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Oh, okay, then I disagree with you on this charcter being loving and just and all that crap. This is an all powerful character who's supposedly all knowing being "sorry" he made them would indicate clear regret. Surely if his knowledge was all encompassing, he'd have seen this problem coming and decided to either skip making people all together, or make them differently, so as to not have to drown the whole thing. If he were truly all knowing, then, this situation wouldn't have arisen unless he wanted it to (which makes him a sadist, far from loving and just). If he were truly all powerful, why not just change whatever he didn't like in the humans? Was that beyond his ability? Then he's not all powerful...if it's within his power an dhe chose basically a near extinction event over rewriting the program, he's a cruel dick, because those babies that drown didn't do anything to him. I'm also not sure I agree with 'creating something igves you the authority to destroy it.' My wife and I created our children, and we don't have the authority to kil l them. 
#7
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
Topic's author
#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh, okay, then I disagree with you on this charcter being loving and just and all that crap.
Fine. You have freedom to think that. 


This is an all powerful character who's supposedly all knowing being "sorry" he made them would indicate clear regret. Surely if his knowledge was all encompassing, he'd have seen this problem coming and decided to either skip making people all together, or make them differently, so as to not have to drown the whole thing.
Why is this so? I knew that before I had kids they would do things that would make me  angry. They would let me down. Perhaps even things that might make me want to throw them out of the family. I certainly was not foolish enough to think that they would be perfect and would never have the capacity to kill or murder or even rape. But I still had them.  And I would do it again even if I knew for sure that they would do this. I don't accept the argument that since God knew what would happen, then he ought to have done something differently. In the first place, it actually denies his holiness and perfection. It also actually makes people guilty before they are guilty. We cannot condemn someone before they have done it.

The other flaw in doctrine in relation to that particular aspect is not one I would typically discuss with non-believers but it goes to the distinction between first and second causes. This particular doctrine enables believers to understand that God plans all things and brings it to pass according to his good and perfect will. It states that nothing happens without God planning it in the first place. But it also provides man with his own responsibility for his actions. Hence, this doctrine teaches that without GOD, nothing happens. Yet it also provides a break in responsibility between the creator and the creature. 

If he were truly all knowing, then, this situation wouldn't have arisen unless he wanted it to (which makes him a sadist, far from loving and just).
Sorry, i don't agree. I am of the view that God is just. This means he won't condemn any without a lawful reason. And just because he knows the future does not change this aspect of his justice. People are not condemned because of future sins. God won't condemn you just because he knows you might turn into Adolph Hitler -even though we as humans might wish that he had never been born. It would be unjust to kill him or his mother before he became this monster. 


If he were truly all powerful, why not just change whatever he didn't like in the humans? Was that beyond his ability?

The flaw in your argument assumes that there was a flaw.  Truly God could have created human beings without a free will.  He could have made them all robots. Is that what you would prefer?   The flaw is not the person. The flaw is not the environment. Neither the genetics or the environment can be blamed.  It was the fact that God gave them liberty which I say is a very good thing. Yet - it was something that despite its very goodness was able to do very good things or be used for evil.   Humanity chose to exploit his own freedom. I don't think free will was a flaw. Trying to find a flaw I think is our way of trying to excuse ourselves for our own evilness. 


Then he's not all powerful...if it's within his power an dhe chose basically a near extinction event over rewriting the program, he's a cruel dick, because those babies that drown didn't do anything to him. I'm also not sure I agree with 'creating something igves you the authority to destroy it.' My wife and I created our children, and we don't have the authority to kil l them. 
You did not create your own children.  LOL @ that thought.  And even our law says you don't own your children, any more than you own yourself. 

The argument about God making the world gives him the right to destroy it.  You admit you have the authority to kill your children? Why not? Someone is bigger than you and has authority to stop you from doing it. Well lawfully anyway. But you could kill them. 

But who is bigger than God? Who has authority over him? Which court is he bound to obey? 


Topic's author
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Castin
I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
I think that is a great question.  I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity.  After all, he did not destroy it completely.  He could have done that as well.  For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again. 

Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous.  Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so.  A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.

A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.  

The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus.   And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things. 

Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus. 
#10
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
I think that is a great question.  I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity.  After all, he did not destroy it completely.  He could have done that as well.  For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again. 

Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous.  Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so.  A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.

A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.  

The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus.   And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things. 

Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus. 
Thanks for your response.

In Genesis 8 we read:

  • The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
I note the present tense, is evil from childhood - appearing to indicate that even after the flood, our every inclination is still corrupt. Human nature has not improved. If we are no better after the flood than before, then what makes God change his tune about floods? If Christ was his plan, why could Christ not have saved the pre-flood world, as he saved the post-flood world - since it seems God thinks we were bad seeds in both worlds?

I appreciate that you don't have all the answers. I'm simply interested in more of your speculation.
#11
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Two really important things here provide an answer for us.  God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them. 
This doesn't really answer your question, but it is food for thought. 

One of my professors in college had a policy concerning test questions.   Many teachers have the same policy.  If at least 50% of the class got a question wrong, it was thrown out.  The professor explained that it was his job to "make us" into people proficient in the subject at hand (say Philosophy 101).  if half the class missed the question, then "HE" was the problem, not the "STUDENT".  If only a few people missed the question, then he "passed judgement" in the form of a grade. 

This is ham-handed I know, but if your question is about God's right to wipe out his creation, then he needs to take responsibility for so MUCH of his class completely failing the course!
Topic's author
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
Two really important things here provide an answer for us.  God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them. 
This doesn't really answer your question, but it is food for thought. 

One of my professors in college had a policy concerning test questions.   Many teachers have the same policy.  If at least 50% of the class got a question wrong, it was thrown out.  The professor explained that it was his job to "make us" into people proficient in the subject at hand (say Philosophy 101).  if half the class missed the question, then "HE" was the problem, not the "STUDENT".  If only a few people missed the question, then he "passed judgement" in the form of a grade. 

This is ham-handed I know, but if your question is about God's right to wipe out his creation, then he needs to take responsibility for so MUCH of his class completely failing the course!

Hi and thanks for your thoughts. Sorry which question did I not answer. 

I see your point with respect of your teachers. Funny, in Australia it would not be the teachers fault if 50% fail.  They will blame the curriculum or the government or the students.  I cannot ever think of one teacher who would blame himself - even if it were his fault. 

Nevertheless, I think that analogy does not fit with Noah's Ark.   Firstly, it was not a test. God was not testing humanity.  I wonder what you would think of a court room scene where the judge heard 100 cases brought by the police?  And in 90% of those cases the judge found them guilty and sentenced them.  Would the fact that 90% of those people being found guilty be a reflection of the judge failing? 

In other words, I think the court room scene is a much more apt picture than a school room testing scenario. I think that God like the judge has to be responsible for what he is doing - not for the actions of the crooks. If a judge let people go - others in the community would scream injustice at the judge. 
#13
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I wonder what you would think of a court room scene where the judge heard 100 cases brought by the police?  And in 90% of those cases the judge found them guilty and sentenced them.  Would the fact that 90% of those people being found guilty be a reflection of the judge failing? 
Absolutely, if the judge was also those people's father and teacher.
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,

Let us see when and who has   suggested that god  drowned  "the entire Jewish nation"? 
No. This does not address or answer the question or the topic. 

So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested". 

Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim. 

Topic's author
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
Where is the teacher part coming in ? 


Topic's author
#16
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested". 

Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim.
Why would I make it up? As for someone not being so familiar with the scriptures, lol, that is ironic. 

I am sure you are capable of looking up who might have asked this question.  

Is there a reason you are not addressing the question. 
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested". 

Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim.
Why would I make it up? As for someone not being so familiar with the scriptures, lol, that is ironic. 

I am sure you are capable of looking up who might have asked this question.  

Is there a reason you are not addressing the question. 
I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .



Topic's author
#18
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.




#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.


  Of course you can't, because  you have made it up to create a thread.  You are making claims that "others" have made claims but conveniently left out any and all context of the claims. 

Just point us to the thread/s on which you say the claim/s have been made.   It cannot be that difficult.  You must have had them at your fingertips seeing that you are able to start a thread about what people are alleged to have claimed.

#20
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Where is the teacher part coming in ? 
You said people are "God's creation" and he has the right to judge and to punish them.  He cannot judge them unless he has first laid out the rules (taught them the rules they must obey or he will kill them in a flood).   So the court "judge" in your example was a stand in for God.  The 100 people on trial were a stand in for every living soul on Earth before the flood.  And the 10 people the judge didn't find guilty were a stand in for Noah and his family.    So instead of Creator and Judge, I used Father and Teacher. 

In my example, the teacher threw out the question if 50% of the class missed it on a test.  He maintained that if over half the class missed it, he had failed as a teacher.  If your "court judge" had to find 90 out of 100 of his own children guilty of a serious crime (one that necessitated death), then I would say as a "Father" and "Teacher" (much as a "Creator" and "Judge"), he had (and has) seriously failed his children.
Topic's author
#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
The problem Stephen is that I don't trust you. I think you have an ulterior motive for wanting me to post to that link.  You know where it is. It is a topic which is now closed. Is there any reason why you don't post it - since you know very well where it is and who posted it? 




#22
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.


  Of course you can't, because  you have made it up to create a thread.  You are making claims that "others" have made claims but conveniently left out any and all context of the claims. 

Just point us to the thread/s on which you say the claim/s have been made.   It cannot be that difficult.  You must have had them at your fingertips seeing that you are able to start a thread about what people are alleged to have claimed.



The problem Stephen is that I don't trust you.




Irrelevant.


I think you have an ulterior motive for wanting me to post to that link.

Stop stalling. Simply put up the links to the relevant threads that you allege  "others"  say "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .


  You know where it is.


No I don't.


 Is there any reason why you don't post it

 I have asked you right at the start of this thread for the evidence for what you allege "others" have claimed#3 . So don't waste your time trying to throw this back to me sunshine.


- since you know very well where it is and who posted it? 

Not to my knowledge. So would you kindly post those links that  YOU alleged that "others" claim that "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" instead of arguing about it?




Topic's author
#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
Where is the teacher part coming in ? 
You said people are "God's creation" and he has the right to judge and to punish them.  He cannot judge them unless he has first laid out the rules (taught them the rules they must obey or he will kill them in a flood).   So the court "judge" in your example was a stand in for God.  The 100 people on trial were a stand in for every living soul on Earth before the flood.  And the 10 people the judge didn't find guilty were a stand in for Noah and his family.    So instead of Creator and Judge, I used Father and Teacher. 

In my example, the teacher threw out the question if 50% of the class missed it on a test.  He maintained that if over half the class missed it, he had failed as a teacher.  If your "court judge" had to find 90 out of 100 of his own children guilty of a serious crime (one that necessitated death), then I would say as a "Father" and "Teacher" (much as a "Creator" and "Judge"), he had (and has) seriously failed his children.


Absolutely I said that. Read the first couple of chapters of Genesis and you will see the one rule he made. After that - humanity was kicked out of God's family. So I feel your link to him having fatherly responsibilities is an overreach. Humanity rejected God. They did not want to be part of his family. Humanity well before the flood was living on borrowed time. They were - indeed as humanity to the largest extent is now - on death row awaiting execution. God at the time of the flood - simply brought down the axe. 

God found grace in the eyes of the Lord. If you understand the term grace - you will understand it is a undeserved gift - and mercy means not getting what you do deserve. Hence Noah also deserved death by God for his own reasons decided to let him and his family survive the deluge and to be the new father of the new world. 

I think that the teacher is unhelpful.  I don't see God as a teacher in the sense of a classroom. While it is true that Adam was on probation during his time in the Garden, and to it seems that of those students 100% failed - I see this not as the result of the teacher. In fact that suggestion simply makes a mockery of the entire bible.  And it makes a mockery of Jesus own death and resurrection from the grave.  

A judge need to remain objective in his judgment. If it turned out that the judge was also the father of the defendant - the judge would need to recuse himself - as a conflict of interest. Justice demands that to be the case.  Justice is blind - not that it is ignorant of truth - but that it sees all defendants the same. 
Topic's author
#24
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Are you really saying you don't know that a recent topic I started was closed down? 


#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
 I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  
Well stated. I applaud your honesty and only wish I saw this kind of admition more often. From theists and atheists alike.
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
 I knew that before I had kids they would do things that would make me  angry. 
But you have not to my knowledge drowned all your children for making you angry and started again with new children. So it isn't really the same us it?
#27
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
This is an all powerful character who's supposedly all knowing being "sorry" he made them would indicate clear regret. Surely if his knowledge was all encompassing, he'd have seen this problem coming and decided to either skip making people all together, or make them differently, so as to not have to drown the whole thing.
Why is this so? I knew that before I had kids they would do things that would make me  angry. They would let me down. Perhaps even things that might make me want to throw them out of the family. I certainly was not foolish enough to think that they would be perfect and would never have the capacity to kill or murder or even rape. But I still had them.  And I would do it again even if I knew for sure that they would do this. I don't accept the argument that since God knew what would happen, then he ought to have done something differently. In the first place, it actually denies his holiness and perfection. It also actually makes people guilty before they are guilty. We cannot condemn someone before they have done it.
Couple of things in this paragraph. First, what if you knew that your kids would not only make you angry, but in fact they WOULD make you angry enough where you literally wanted to kill them. Like before they were born, you found out without any question that they'd be virulent racists who would go on hate-fueled killing sprees, and your name would be all over the news as their dad. They'd eventually be hated throughout the world, like Hitler level, eventually caught, humiliated, tried, and punished brutally with a long term of the most severe torture imaginable, with no chance of escape or redemption, by whatever court gets them. WITHOUT question this would happen, not "have the capacity to let you down." Sucks, right? Now, what if I told you before the kid was born there was a simple something you could do to absolutely avoid this course of action. It costs you nothing, it costs the child nothing, it costs the mother nothing , it's easy to do, in fact, it's just three magic words and bang, none of that happens. Would you take the three magic word solution? Or would you say "nah, I still think it won't happen even though there is literally no other possibility." I presume, as you are not a monster, you take the three magic words, have happy children who don't become racists and ruin so many other lives, right? If the choice is clear to you, then you're smarter than the god in the bible. If the choice ISN'T clear, and you had a chance to solve the problem, but chose NOT to, how do you not bear responsibility to the mourning families of those your child slaughtered? Again, it wasn't a question that they'd do it. And you had a clear solution. No, you didn't kill those other people, but I'm sorry, you absolutely bear responsibility. This is the choice god makes in the book: he knows what's going to happen, he had a hundred painless ways to fix it, or more, and chose, instead, to let the two people transgress AND to let himself get som mad about his ineptitude that he decided to drown the entire planet. YES, IT DENIES HIS PERFECTION, that's the problem you're trying to avoid, but cannot. 

And apparently it's okay for god to condemn someone before they've done anything...ever heard of original sin? 

Hence, this doctrine teaches that without GOD, nothing happens. Yet it also provides a break in responsibility between the creator and the creature. 
Yes, but not through rationale or logic, just by handwaving. It's exceptionally simple to grasp: if you have a plan for every molecule in existence, and you are never surprised, and you have all knowledge of all time before you and all power to change whatever the outcome is to something you like, then you are, in fact, ultimately responsible for everything that happens, indeed you have CHOSEN for things to happen as they do. Man is not responsible for anything at all under the all-omni-god  paradigm. What you're doing is akin to blaming sulfuric acid and water for a violent reaction when mixed, when in fact the scientist mixing them is at fault: he knows what's going to happen every time, yet he chooses to do it anyway. 

God won't condemn you just because he knows you might turn into Adolph Hitler -even though we as humans might wish that he had never been born. It would be unjust to kill him or his mother before he became this monster. 
This is where you're off: to god it's not "might become." It's DOES become. Immutably. And you wouldn't have to kill Hitler before he became a monster. You simply have to correct whatever it was in the programming to MAKE him become that monster. Because god, according to your narrative, chose to make him into Hitler. Unless you're saying god doesn't know what's going to happen when Hitler's born, but I think you believe (a) god knows everything that will ever happen, because you say it in this post and (b) he is the cause of all things. Nothing happens without god, right?

But who is bigger than God? Who has authority over him? Which court is he bound to obey?
If god does something, then, it is automatically moral for all time, because there's no one to hold him accountable? Weird justification there. 
Topic's author
#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Couple of things in this paragraph. First, what if you knew that your kids would not only make you angry, but in fact they WOULD make you angry enough where you literally wanted to kill them. Like before they were born, you found out without any question that they'd be virulent racists who would go on hate-fueled killing sprees, and your name would be all over the news as their dad. They'd eventually be hated throughout the world, like Hitler level, eventually caught, humiliated, tried, and punished brutally with a long term of the most severe torture imaginable, with no chance of escape or redemption, by whatever court gets them. WITHOUT question this would happen, not "have the capacity to let you down." Sucks, right? Now, what if I told you before the kid was born there was a simple something you could do to absolutely avoid this course of action. It costs you nothing, it costs the child nothing, it costs the mother nothing , it's easy to do, in fact, it's just three magic words and bang, none of that happens. Would you take the three magic word solution? Or would you say "nah, I still think it won't happen even though there is literally no other possibility." I presume, as you are not a monster, you take the three magic words, have happy children who don't become racists and ruin so many other lives, right? If the choice is clear to you, then you're smarter than the god in the bible. If the choice ISN'T clear, and you had a chance to solve the problem, but chose NOT to, how do you not bear responsibility to the mourning families of those your child slaughtered? Again, it wasn't a question that they'd do it. And you had a clear solution. No, you didn't kill those other people, but I'm sorry, you absolutely bear responsibility. This is the choice god makes in the book: he knows what's going to happen, he had a hundred painless ways to fix it, or more, and chose, instead, to let the two people transgress AND to let himself get som mad about his ineptitude that he decided to drown the entire planet. YES, IT DENIES HIS PERFECTION, that's the problem you're trying to avoid, but cannot. 
I still don't agree it is just to condemn someone for something they have not done yet - even if it inevitable that they will do it. And all of your maneuvering around to justify it is wordplay.    Three magic words - are you you serious? It is like you have no clue about the seriousness nature of sin. What your scenario still leaves out is the justice of God.  I have said it before and I will say it again, God is not a magician. The Bible never claims that God is a magician. He does not work by smoke and mirrors which is what magic is really about. What you fail to realise is that the only way to deal with sin is by death.  So whether sin actually takes place or others are judged because of some inevitable future sin, it still has to be dealt with by death.  I suggest to you that even the order we have in our scientific world is one that reflects God's image.  

I think the notion that God just says the word and evil people just never exist is a fantasy.  And that thought really only has one motive - to deny one's own responsibility before God.  What you have said - is an attempt to deny his perfection - but it does not even raise an eyebrow for me.  It is an abomination God says, to condemn an innocent man. 

And apparently it's okay for god to condemn someone before they've done anything...ever heard of original sin? 
Respectfully, you just demonstrate you do not understand original sin. Original sin - is sin as opposed to sins.  Sin is the collective sin of treason against God. Sins are personal individual sins. Go and learn what it is talking about and then come back. 

Hence, this doctrine teaches that without GOD, nothing happens. Yet it also provides a break in responsibility between the creator and the creature. 
Yes, but not through rationale or logic, just by handwaving. It's exceptionally simple to grasp: if you have a plan for every molecule in existence, and you are never surprised, and you have all knowledge of all time before you and all power to change whatever the outcome is to something you like, then you are, in fact, ultimately responsible for everything that happens, indeed you have CHOSEN for things to happen as they do. Man is not responsible for anything at all under the all-omni-god  paradigm. What you're doing is akin to blaming sulfuric acid and water for a violent reaction when mixed, when in fact the scientist mixing them is at fault: he knows what's going to happen every time, yet he chooses to do it anyway. 
Well actually it is not hand waving.  It is the same logic that governments around the world use to justify taxes.  And similarly to stop people refusing to pay taxes for services they dislike.  Tax payers pay tax into a consolidated tax account. Governments then use this tax to pay for different services in the community - some of these services which pay for abortions and others which pay for defence forces.  Whenever a tax payer says to the government - I refuse to pay taxes to support murder - meaning abortion - the courts say - well you are not doing that. You see the - courts distinguish between first and second causes.  It is actually part and parcel of our legal system and of the way we do things. You can dismiss it all you like. But you would be wrong. 

In Christian circles we talk of God's will and we talk of God's will.  And we mean different things. God has an hidden will.  We cannot fathom this hidden will. It is what is done in accordance with his plans and his providential plan. It is what goes on behind the scenes and brings all things to pass - because without the plan of God nothing happens which does happen.  All these things including sin and the death of Jesus are included within this hidden will.  While we don't what it is  - we do know that he is good and he is just and holy in what he does and its purpose is to bring all of creation together - reconciled with himself. We also talk of his revealed will. That is the revealed plans of God in accordance of how he wills us to live.  We find this in the bible.  Hence when we talk of obeying God's will - we mean his revealed will. When we say - if it God's will this will happen - it is talking about his hidden will.   As I said above - it is not something I would normally discuss with a non-believer for the simple reason that it makes no sense to you and will be seen as some sort of excuse. 

But it does provide us with a working faith.  A faith that reveals that God is the one who providentially brings all things to pass - but also is not the author of sin. I don't particularly care whether you agree with it or not.  It is logical and it makes sense. Yet it relies upon particular premises which I understand you find ridiculous.  Similarly you work with premises I find ridiculous - such as condemning people to non-existence before they even have the capacity to commit sin. I find that unfair and unjust and in my eyes plain evil.   

God won't condemn you just because he knows you might turn into Adolph Hitler -even though we as humans might wish that he had never been born. It would be unjust to kill him or his mother before he became this monster. 
This is where you're off: to god it's not "might become." It's DOES become. Immutably. And you wouldn't have to kill Hitler before he became a monster. You simply have to correct whatever it was in the programming to MAKE him become that monster. Because god, according to your narrative, chose to make him into Hitler. Unless you're saying god doesn't know what's going to happen when Hitler's born, but I think you believe (a) god knows everything that will ever happen, because you say it in this post and (b) he is the cause of all things. Nothing happens without god, right?
Again - you make the mistake of condemning innocent people because of something they might do in the future. Yes, you use the cute language of saying that GOD KNOWS what will happen. But you cannot even see the contradiction in your own language.  If God knows they will do something - and then condemns them before they actually do this crime - for what were they punished? IF they never commit the crime, they never commit the crime and even an all knowing God would know that they have never actually committed the crime and therefore unfairly and unjustly punished them.  It is wrong. You are asking God to become unfair and unjust in his judgement to satisfy your own responsibility. 

Yes I have distinguished between first and second causes.  


But who is bigger than God? Who has authority over him? Which court is he bound to obey?
If god does something, then, it is automatically moral for all time, because there's no one to hold him accountable? Weird justification there. 
Well can you think of a different alternative? Please enlighten us all.  


#29
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
So I feel your link to him having fatherly responsibilities is an overreach
2 Corinthians 6:18  & 2 Samuel 7:14, “I will be a Father to you and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
Ephesians 3:15, “[God is] the Father from whom all fatherhood derives its name.”
1 John 3:1, “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us that we should be called children of God!”
Psalm 68:5-6, “A Father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling.  God sets the lonely in families, he leads forth the prisoners with singing.” 
Matthew 7:11, “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”
Galatians 4:6, NLT: "And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, 'Abba, Father."

I think that the teacher is unhelpful.  I don't see God as a teacher in the sense of a classroom.
Psalm 32:8, I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you."
Psalm 71:17, "O God, You have taught me from my youth, and I still declare Your wondrous deeds."
Isaiah 28:26,  "For his God instructs and teaches him properly."
Isaiah 48:17, “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go."
John 6:45, "It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."

A judge need to remain objective in his judgment. If it turned out that the judge was also the father of the defendant - the judge would need to recuse himself - as a conflict of interest. Justice demands that to be the case.
I agree!  My Father and Teacher analogy still stands. 
Topic's author
#30
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
Hi and thanks for those passages. 

I still think that a judge must be above reproach in respect of his judgment. Otherwise - he will be seen as biased. 

And although God might be at all times a father and at all times a teacher - it does not mean that this will mean that he will be unjust in his sentence.