Noah's Ark

[Tristesse]

You're mushing the story. Nowhere in the Noah narrative is it said that "God created evil." In fact, nowhere in that narrative does it say that "God created humanity, knowing in advance that it wouldn't live up to [God's] expectations." Your argument is a straw man.

You're looking at this from a standpoint of "God doing something to a bunch of individuals," rather than from the standpoint of "the collective plight of humanity."

You can't mush the message and come up with a good analysis. Rather, your analysis takes into consideration things that are beyond the narrative in question.

It's not a straw man.

Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil

Clearly the bible states that god creates all things, including evil. Also, the god of the bible is portrayed as omniscient, meaning he knows all including the future. I'm not using a strawman, I'm using the mainstream doctrine of christianity. So, If god creates all, good and evil, and god is omniscient, then clearly god knew in advance that his creation would not live up to his expectation, but created them anyways. And he also created the evil that they apparently partook of. So, where was the strawman?

 

[Autodidact]

Laws are part of the created order. How can one become bound by that over which one has power?

Then on what basis can one say God is good? Certainly not in the sense in which we usually use the word.

 

[Engyo]

I have some simple questions.
I've been searching information about the "Noah's Ark story" and I found out that everyone on Earth died except for Noah and his family, who were all on The Ark.
The people who were on the Ark were: Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives.

Are we absolutely sure that some artistic license hasn't been taken with the story as we learned it?

 

[sojourner]

It's not a straw man.

Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil

Clearly the bible states that god creates all things, including evil. Also, the god of the bible is portrayed as omniscient, meaning he knows all including the future. I'm not using a strawman, I'm using the mainstream doctrine of christianity. So, If god creates all, good and evil, and god is omniscient, then clearly god knew in advance that his creation would not live up to his expectation, but created them anyways. And he also created the evil that they apparently partook of. So, where was the strawman?

Yes, but we're not talking about Isaiah, or the Bible as a whole, are we! We're dealing with the Noah narrative, specifically, and the theological construct of that author.

I'm not so sure that the whole "God created evil" thing is included in the set of "mainstream Xian doctrine."

The straw man is in imposing a theological construct upon the story in question that is not at all implied by that story. In other words, you're putting someone else's words and ideas into the author's mouth, and creating a non-existent premise. Then you proceed to knock it down. It's a straw man.

 

[sojourner]

Then on what basis can one say God is good? Certainly not in the sense in which we usually use the word.

Why? Because God is capable of doing what God pleases?
What pleases God? To embody love.

 

[Autodidact]

Why? Because God is capable of doing what God pleases?
What pleases God? To embody love.

Call me crazy, I don't see killing everybody as embodying love.

 

[Tristesse]

Yes, but we're not talking about Isaiah, or the Bible as a whole, are we! We're dealing with the Noah narrative, specifically, and the theological construct of that author.

I'm not so sure that the whole "God created evil" thing is included in the set of "mainstream Xian doctrine."

The straw man is in imposing a theological construct upon the story in question that is not at all implied by that story. In other words, you're putting someone else's words and ideas into the author's mouth, and creating a non-existent premise. Then you proceed to knock it down. It's a straw man.

So, the god in Isaiah is a different god then the one portrayed in the flood story? And if god didn't create evil, then are you saying there are certain things that god didn't create? and I was under the impression that god created satan.

Here's what I'm doing, I'm taking the god from the bible, and using his understanding with the flood narrative. For instance, god is all knowing (omniscient) god creates good and evil, etc... If it's the same god who drowned infants and people, then my criticism is valid, unless you're admitting that there are different gods throughout the bible. And the justification I hear a lot from christians about the flood story when asked why god drowned the infants as well, is that god knew the infants would grow up to be bad. Doesn't that sort of imply an all knowing god?

 

[sojourner]

So, the god in Isaiah is a different god then the one portrayed in the flood story? And if god didn't create evil, then are you saying there are certain things that god didn't create? and I was under the impression that god created satan.

Here's what I'm doing, I'm taking the god from the bible, and using his understanding with the flood narrative. For instance, god is all knowing (omniscient) god creates good and evil, etc... If it's the same god who drowned infants and people, then my criticism is valid, unless you're admitting that there are different gods throughout the bible. And the justification I hear a lot from christians about the flood story when asked why god drowned the infants as well, is that god knew the infants would grow up to be bad. Doesn't that sort of imply an all knowing god?

It's the same God, but God is conceived differently by the various authors. If one sets out to exegete a certain narrative, one must work within the framework of that narrative. If one wants to exegete what the author is saying about God in the flood narrative, one cannot use outside assumptions upon which to base the exegesis. One's task is only to determine what that particular author said about God in that particular narrative.

To "take God from the Bible" is to create a false, "mush-God" -- a conglomeration of several takes on God. Each facet has to be considered in its own right.

For example, if we consider the concept of God in the creation myths, God is not omniscient, since God went walking in the garden, seeking Adam. In the creation myths, God brings the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. So God as presented by Genesis 1,2 is not omniscient.

As humanity progresses and changes, the concept of God changes, too. And each concept builds on what came before. So if we're going to consider God as an amalgam of all known concepts, we have to consider all known concepts. In other words, we can't use the Isaiah description without also considering the description of God as a loving father, as found in the NT. And both of those descriptions have to be considered with the portrayal of God in the flood narrative, in order to arrive at a completely new concept -- not one that is imposed upon an earlier narrative.

 

[Wotan]

The ultimate justification for god's "evil" behavior (so I was taught) is as follows:
ALL of creation belongs to god.
ALL wisdom belongs to god. That is man knows nothing that god dies not allow him to know.
Man is INcapable of understanding either god or his ways.
Were god, in his infinite wisdom to destroy the earth and everything therein he has that right. It is ALL his. He made it, he controls it, he knows what is best in the very l-o-o-ong run and NOTHING he does can be wrong.
The fact that WE do not understand it is proof not that god is evil but that man is stupid, ignorant and sinful. AND arrogant to even raised the question of why.

Note please the anti-reason anti learning anti-humanity attitude there expressed.
THAT'S the faith. Dress it up all you like it is still there.
Self-hatred writ large.

 

[sojourner]

The ultimate justification for god's "evil" behavior (so I was taught) is as follows:
ALL of creation belongs to god.
ALL wisdom belongs to god. That is man knows nothing that god dies not allow him to know.
Man is INcapable of understanding either god or his ways.
Were god, in his infinite wisdom to destroy the earth and everything therein he has that right. It is ALL his. He made it, he controls it, he knows what is best in the very l-o-o-ong run and NOTHING he does can be wrong.
The fact that WE do not understand it is proof not that god is evil but that man is stupid, ignorant and sinful. AND arrogant to even raised the question of why.

Note please the anti-reason anti learning anti-humanity attitude there expressed.
THAT'S the faith. Dress it up all you like it is still there.
Self-hatred writ large.

I suppose it could be viewed in that way. But I prefer to view it as our aspiration to become more than we now are. While God is omniscient and we are not; while God is perfect and we are not; while creation belongs to God, God made us the kings and queens of that creation, to do with it as we please. Since God's gifts are perfect, as God is perfect, then there are no provisos with that gift of stewardship. Our "job" is to learn from creation, so that we become better stewards of it -- ourselves included. I just don't see anti-reason, anti-learning, anti-humanity there...

 

[Autodidact]

I suppose it could be viewed in that way. But I prefer to view it as our aspiration to become more than we now are. While God is omniscient and we are not; while God is perfect and we are not; while creation belongs to God, God made us the kings and queens of that creation, to do with it as we please. Since God's gifts are perfect, as God is perfect, then there are no provisos with that gift of stewardship. Our "job" is to learn from creation, so that we become better stewards of it -- ourselves included. I just don't see anti-reason, anti-learning, anti-humanity there...

Hard to do when you're under water.

 

[Tristesse]

It's the same God, but God is conceived differently by the various authors. If one sets out to exegete a certain narrative, one must work within the framework of that narrative. If one wants to exegete what the author is saying about God in the flood narrative, one cannot use outside assumptions upon which to base the exegesis. One's task is only to determine what that particular author said about God in that particular narrative.

To "take God from the Bible" is to create a false, "mush-God" -- a conglomeration of several takes on God. Each facet has to be considered in its own right.

For example, if we consider the concept of God in the creation myths, God is not omniscient, since God went walking in the garden, seeking Adam. In the creation myths, God brings the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. So God as presented by Genesis 1,2 is not omniscient.

As humanity progresses and changes, the concept of God changes, too. And each concept builds on what came before. So if we're going to consider God as an amalgam of all known concepts, we have to consider all known concepts. In other words, we can't use the Isaiah description without also considering the description of God as a loving father, as found in the NT. And both of those descriptions have to be considered with the portrayal of God in the flood narrative, in order to arrive at a completely new concept -- not one that is imposed upon an earlier narrative.

Oh ok. Then you don't think the flood story is meant to be literal. It's an allegory. I was under the impression that you actually thought the events took place.

 

[Noaidi]

So far, we have heard from some christians saying that the flood was necessary in order to save ourselves from ourselves. God did us a favour, basically.
If this god is an all-loving, compassionate and just god, why choose drowning as the method of wiping life out? Why not just have a click of the celestial fingers and we're gone. Quick, painless and easy. Why put people through the terror of having to cope with rapidly rising water (knowing there is no escape) and then put them through the ordeal of drowning?

 

[Misty]

So far, we have heard from some christians saying that the flood was necessary in order to save ourselves from ourselves. God did us a favour, basically.
If this god is an all-loving, compassionate and just god, why choose drowning as the method of wiping life out? Why not just have a click of the celestial fingers and we're gone. Quick, painless and easy. Why put people through the terror of having to cope with rapidly rising water (knowing there is no escape) and then put them through the ordeal of drowning?

Because the evil deity got its kicks from seeing people suffer, and they think satan is bad!

 

[Evandr]

It's not a straw man.

Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil

Clearly the bible states that god creates all things, including evil. ........ So, where was the strawman?

Easy, when all things were a compound in one there was nothing discernable. When God created the light the darkness became discernable and thusly it could be said that creating one, and thusly leaving the other to be recognized, is to have created the whole situation without being guilty of something bad; one was simply left when the other was created. Knowing something is going to happen does not necessarily make one responsible for its existence. There can be no darkness without the light to contrast it. God did not "create" darkness per say, he simply had it as a by-product of what He did create because darkness, in not in and of itself, is the absence of light whereas light is in and of itself. The same can be said of good and evil, creating that which is good leaves the unavoidable necessity of the contrary, or evil. God did not create "evil" per say but evil was simply the contradiction of good.

Now, given that there must be opposition in all things we have been given commandment and free will to choose what part of creation we will become associated with and what we will be influenced by. Judgment simply places us where we belong as a result; a placement we are solely responsible for.

 

[Wotan]

Easy, when all things were a compound in one there was nothing discernable. When God created the light the darkness became discernable and thusly it could be said that creating one, and thusly leaving the other to be recognized, is to have created the whole situation without being guilty of something bad; one was simply left when the other was created. Knowing something is going to happen does not necessarily make one responsible for its existence. There can be no darkness without the light to contrast it. God did not "create" darkness per say, he simply had it as a by-product of what He did create because darkness, in not in and of itself, is the absence of light whereas light is in and of itself. The same can be said of good and evil, creating that which is good leaves the unavoidable necessity of the contrary, or evil. God did not create "evil" per say but evil was simply the contradiction of good.

Now, given that there must be opposition in all things we have been given commandment and free will to choose what part of creation we will become associated with and what we will be influenced by. Judgment simply places us where we belong as a result; a placement we are solely responsible for.

Wadda maladorous pile of male bovine feces!

I just fired the gun. I had no control over where the bullet went. How was I to know it'da hurt somebody?

Posts like that show just what a hateful anti-human line of god-excusing CRAP religion is!! How can any reasoning mind read that garbage and not be revolted by the blatant excusing of Evil behavior?

 

[Evandr]

Wadda maladorous pile of male bovine feces!

I just fired the gun. I had no control over where the bullet went. How was I to know it'da hurt somebody?

Posts like that show just what a hateful anti-human line of god-excusing CRAP religion is!! How can any reasoning mind read that garbage and not be revolted by the blatant excusing of Evil behavior?

You just don't have the capacity to get it do you. You cannot seem to comprehend that the free will of the individual to choose is only worth something so long as there is something to choose. God did not create evil any more than He created darkness. Evil is the absence of good and it is good that is responsible for all creation. All creation is based on the concept of growth and anything that hinders or stands in the way of it is contrary to good and is given the name if sin and evil.

Good is reality as is light; evil is contrary to reality, being the absence of good, as is darkness the absence of light - Light is real, it has energy, it can be controlled whereas darkness has none of these things, to control darkness you must be able to control the light; Good and evil are the same way; evil and darkness do not exist as anything other than the label given to that which is contrary to the establishment of physical reality. A person does not choose evil, they choose to go contrary to that which is good and that is referred to as being evil. If it were not so then all things would be a compound in one and nothing would exist, no joy, no happiness, no growth, no progression, no reward,...unorganized nothingness would be the state of reality - God would cease to be God.

You think you have it all figured out but your lack of wisdom and understanding is all too obvious. Everybody chooses their own warm fuzzy; I think yours carries no potential for real growth and understanding. Wise men understand these things, you should try.

 

[Evandr]

Posts like that show just what a hateful anti-human line of god-excusing CRAP religion is!! How can any reasoning mind read that garbage and not be revolted by the blatant excusing of Evil behavior?

You really aught to stop twisting things around. There is a reason that mankind is under the law of God - it is God's law and therefore it is not evil when God works with it, it is however extremely evil to try to usurp that authority and pass judgment.

Heaven and Earth are like a house and a yard. We grew up in the house and were sent to the yard and then we are called back into the house. God does not see death, He sees change and His wisdom is the driving force of that change. Trial and experience are the goals for growth and returning to His presence is the goal of life eternal. Just because God has not set you on His Heavenly council so you can understand everything does not make Him evil and having a smiley with its face in a hand does not give credence to anything you say. We were before the world was, we are in the world and then we are out of it. The evil that men do...men do and not God and everything that appears evil to you may not be, mankind is not smart or wise enough to make that call nor do they know the workings of our creator.

 

[Autodidact]

Easy, when all things were a compound in one there was nothing discernable. When God created the light the darkness became discernable and thusly it could be said that creating one, and thusly leaving the other to be recognized, is to have created the whole situation without being guilty of something bad; one was simply left when the other was created. Knowing something is going to happen does not necessarily make one responsible for its existence. There can be no darkness without the light to contrast it. God did not "create" darkness per say, he simply had it as a by-product of what He did create because darkness, in not in and of itself, is the absence of light whereas light is in and of itself. The same can be said of good and evil, creating that which is good leaves the unavoidable necessity of the contrary, or evil. God did not create "evil" per say but evil was simply the contradiction of good.

Now, given that there must be opposition in all things we have been given commandment and free will to choose what part of creation we will become associated with and what we will be influenced by. Judgment simply places us where we belong as a result; a placement we are solely responsible for.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying there's a great big mush of stuff, and God comes along and sort of extracts all the good stuff, leaving the bad there?

 

[Autodidact]

Evil is the absence of good

I don't think so. When someone takes an affirmative evil action, like murdering someone else in cold blood (or deliberately killing everything on the planet) it's not the absence of anything; it's an affirmative evil action.

You could as well define good as the absence of evil. It's sophistry.