What - a fallible and angry god?

[Sweetvoice]

Genesis 6 vs 1 to 8:
Who were the "sons of god" who desire those daughters of men? Who were those "men" and Nephilim? Were they created by another god, who let them live on this earth before or after Adam?

Can the infallible god grieved over his creations that he wanted to totally destroy them from the face of the earth. Is he worst than Hilter and so un-compassionate for humans? Even Noah has more compassion.

Can all Abrahamic faiths explain this please.

 

[Sweetvoice]

Wow! More than 22 hrs and 21 views, and no reply from the abrahamic community. Could it be than the question is too harsh? Oh well, life goes on.

 

[Rakhel]

Genesis 6 vs 1 to 8:
Who were the "sons of god" who desire those daughters of men? Who were those "men" and Nephilim? Were they created by another god, who let them live on this earth before or after Adam?

Can the infallible god grieved over his creations that he wanted to totally destroy them from the face of the earth. Is he worst than Hilter and so un-compassionate for humans? Even Noah has more compassion.

Can all Abrahamic faiths explain this please.

According to some, Nephilim were giants. They may have been the Titans spoken of in Greek mythos, one of which may have been Adam, who was believed to be very tall, himself.
As to the rest of your questions, G-d is neither good or bad. I will just say what I have said before.
G-d is sitting on the couch with a bowl of popcorn and a beer, laughing at the idiots on the TV.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Genesis 6 vs 1 to 8:
Who were the "sons of god" who desire those daughters of men? Who were those "men" and Nephilim? Were they created by another god, who let them live on this earth before or after Adam?

Can the infallible god grieved over his creations that he wanted to totally destroy them from the face of the earth. Is he worst than Hilter and so un-compassionate for humans? Even Noah has more compassion.

Can all Abrahamic faiths explain this please.

By beliefs are not fully Abrahamic, but there are some concepts I agree with. What know as death is futile to the one who created life if this same is also the one who chooses when we die. It is complete arrogance and pride to think that we are the only creation in which is loved IMO. Just because He kills the physical, does this mean that the spiritual dies as well? If so would this not be better than eternal suffering?

 

[Sweetvoice]

According to some, Nephilim were giants. They may have been the Titans spoken of in Greek mythos, one of which may have been Adam, who was believed to be very tall, himself.
As to the rest of your questions, G-d is neither good or bad. I will just say what I have said before.
G-d is sitting on the couch with a bowl of popcorn and a beer, laughing at the idiots on the TV.

Presumably the idiots on TV are we humans.
Thank you for the reply.

 

[Sweetvoice]

By beliefs are not fully Abrahamic, but there are some concepts I agree with. What know as death is futile to the one who created life if this same is also the one who chooses when we die. It is complete arrogance and pride to think that we are the only creation in which is loved IMO. Just because He kills the physical, does this mean that the spiritual dies as well? If so would this not be better than eternal suffering?

Thank you. Your points taken.

 

[userque]

Genesis 6 vs 1 to 8:
Who were the "sons of god" who desire those daughters of men?

Angels.

Who were those "men" and Nephilim?

The Nephilim were the offspring of angels and humans.

Were they created by another god,

No.

who let them live on this earth before or after Adam?

No.

Can the infallible god grieved over his creations that he wanted to totally destroy them from the face of the earth.

He gave his creation freewill. He could have created perfect, non-freewill, robots.

If the creations act in grossly disobedient fashion, total destruction of the creation seems a fair option.

Is he worst than Hilter and so un-compassionate for humans?

If I assume I know what you mean by worst..., no he is not as a creator has a right to destroy his own creation. Noah was not destroyed due to the compassion. It seems to me that Noah and his family were the only ones in the world that were obedient to the creator.

Even Noah has more compassion.

I strongly disagree.

Can all Abrahamic faiths explain this please.

Probably.

 

[Sweetvoice]

Angels.



The Nephilim were the offspring of angels and humans.



No.



No.



He gave his creation freewill. He could have created perfect, non-freewill, robots.

If the creations act in grossly disobedient fashion, total destruction of the creation seems a fair option.



If I assume I know what you mean by worst..., no he is not as a creator has a right to destroy his own creation. Noah was not destroyed due to the compassion. It seems to me that Noah and his family were the only ones in the world that were obedient to the creator.



I strongly disagree.



Probably.

Thank you for a simple and direct answers. If robots could have consciousness and feelings, I rather be created one. Still I think that off-springs of Adam & Eve are not to be considered as creations of god but rather by-products, if you like.

 

[userque]

Thank you for a simple and direct answers...

You're welcome!

Still I think that off-springs of Adam & Eve are not to be considered as creations of god but rather by-products, if you like.

I've thought about this. Suppose I create a computer virus that replicates without "mating" with another virus. I would consider the original virus my creation, as well as it's offspring. (So would the FBI.)

Suppose I create two robots, calling them Adam and Eve. I designed the Eve model to build a smaller robot if the Adam robot pushes the correct buttons on Eve. This smaller robot I've designed to build upon itself (grow) by acquiring resources (eating)...you get the picture.

Anyway, I would also consider the "offspring" of Adam and Eve my creations as the whole system is of my design.

Not to mention the fact that the creator, somehow, places a soul into each new human.

----------------------

Regarding the non-human "creations" of man: computers, buildings, the wheel, technology, etc. Are they too creations of the creator or byproducts of his creation?

If I suddenly appear in your home, take apart, suppose, a bookcase of yours; and rebuild it into a creation of my own: a doll house. Who owns the doll house, you or I? Suppose your offspring did the same?

 

[Sweetvoice]

You're welcome!



I've thought about this. Suppose I create a computer virus that replicates without "mating" with another virus. I would consider the original virus my creation, as well as it's offspring. (So would the FBI.)

Suppose I create two robots, calling them Adam and Eve. I designed the Eve model to build a smaller robot if the Adam robot pushes the correct buttons on Eve. This smaller robot I've designed to build upon itself (grow) by acquiring resources (eating)...you get the picture.

Anyway, I would also consider the "offspring" of Adam and Eve my creations as the whole system is of my design.

Not to mention the fact that the creator, somehow, places a soul into each new human.

----------------------

Regarding the non-human "creations" of man: computers, buildings, the wheel, technology, etc. Are they too creations of the creator or byproducts of his creation?

If I suddenly appear in your home, take apart, suppose, a bookcase of yours; and rebuild it into a creation of my own: a doll house. Who owns the doll house, you or I? Suppose your offspring did the same?

If I create a robot to function just the way I design it, eg, to walk from point A to B and then drop a pooh, then that is just what I created it to be - functioning correctly. However, I can't really say the pooh is my creation, because I have no more control over the poohing anymore.

Again, if you told away my bookcase and rebuild it into a doll house, you have actually taken away a collection of wooden materials that was shaped like a bookcase and reshape it into a doll house. In reality you have taken nothing - there is no bookcase and no doll house - just a collection of wood which we gave a label to identify with.
Yet these reshaping of wood are the functioning ability of the "created man," which like the pooh, the creator have no control. Likewise, I have no more control as to what my offsprings can or cannot do.

If the creator have no control over the actions of his creation, he can't be the master over his creations - it is just working according to the blueprint. However, this blueprint may be a big mistake which the creator of things have to fix from time to time.

 

[userque]

If I create a robot to function just the way I design it, eg, to walk from point A to B and then drop a pooh, then that is just what I created it to be - functioning correctly. However, I can't really say the pooh is my creation, because I have no more control over the poohing anymore.

You [say you] have no control over the robot either, yet you acknowledge that it still remains your creation.

Additionally, just as you designed it to walk from point A to point B, you also designed it to pooh. The robot didn't redesign itself in order to pooh.

Again, if you told away my bookcase and rebuild it into a doll house, you have actually taken away a collection of wooden materials that was shaped like a bookcase and reshape it into a doll house. In reality you have taken nothing - there is no bookcase and no doll house - just a collection of wood which we gave a label to identify with.

My original point was more about ownership. Simply put: Just because I "created" the doll house, I still don't own it as I used material you own without your permission to reshape it into a final product of my "creation." This was just another example where even though creation A (me/humans) "created" an offspring creation (doll house/children), creation A does not "own" their sub-creation.

Another example would be intellectual properties of companies, belonging to companies, but "created" by individual employees.

In other words, it ought not be so strange to believe, as I do, that even though two humans, within a few minutes, can "create" a baby; the real creator is the entity that designed the whole baby-making process; the entity that did all the heavy lifting.

Yet these reshaping of wood are the functioning ability of the "created man," which like the pooh, the creator have no control. Likewise, I have no more control as to what my offsprings can or cannot do.

Again, you acknowledge that Adam and Eve were of the creator, even though they were free to act outside of the control of the creator. Thus, "control" is apparently the relevant factor you seem to make it out to be.

If the creator have no control over the actions of his creation, he can't be the master over his creations - it is just working according to the blueprint.

Just because a creator allows freedom, doesn't mean that said creator has relinquished control. In our above examples, the robots can be destroyed or reprogrammed to no longer pooh.

However, this blueprint may be a big mistake which the creator of things have to fix from time to time.

i.e. control

 

[Sweetvoice]

@userque: Your points noted. However, since this is a DIR forum not for debate I will leave it as is. My original query is why an infallible god can grieve and feel anger over his creation.
Thank you.

 

[userque]

@userque: Your points noted. However, since this is a DIR forum not for debate I will leave it as is. My original query is why an infallible god can grieve and feel anger over his creation.
Thank you.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

My apologies to you and the moderators.

 

[kai]

MOD POST

This Thread has been moved to Religious Debates​

 

[BruceDLimber]

Only if you accept (and follow) those particular scriptures!

Our scriptures portray an infinitely more loving and merciful God!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Sweetvoice]

MOD POST​

This Thread has been moved to Religious Debates​

Yah! We can seriously debate this issue now. Let's go guys.

 

[Blackdog22]

By beliefs are not fully Abrahamic, but there are some concepts I agree with. What know as death is futile to the one who created life if this same is also the one who chooses when we die. It is complete arrogance and pride to think that we are the only creation in which is loved IMO. Just because He kills the physical, does this mean that the spiritual dies as well? If so would this not be better than eternal suffering?

So from this point of view life is worthless? Your making it sound like commiting genocide is a good thing because the "spirit" doesn't die. First you would need to prove their is an afterlife, making assumptions isn't all that helpful. Then you would need to explain why God would put us in the physical life if his plan is just to murder us all, with physical pain and torment, if we don't obey him. How exactly is that good?

 

[horizon_mj1]

So from this point of view life is worthless? Your making it sound like commiting genocide is a good thing because the "spirit" doesn't die. First you would need to prove their is an afterlife, making assumptions isn't all that helpful. Then you would need to explain why God would put us in the physical life if his plan is just to murder us all, with physical pain and torment, if we don't obey him. How exactly is that good?

I in no way from any any level of belief, agree with genocide. As far as making assumtions, look at my thread Only Absolute Proof of the Hereafter, then ask me about the "afterlife". As far as if there is a Divine God in which is responsible for "everything" the IMO; What ever it is you go through in life, rather it be good or bad, you either accept in this life "blow for blow (kind of like being in a boxing ring or something to that effect)", or you can do it after you die (point blank). Who are you or anyone else to judge (or tell the Divne) what would be good and what would not be good. I guess you can say that whatever happens, I can deal with it.

 

[Sweetvoice]

@ userque:

You [say you] have no control over the robot either, yet you acknowledge that it still remains your creation.

Yes, the robot is my creation, but the pooh -- eehh, no!

Additionally, just as you designed it to walk from point A to point B, you also designed it to pooh. The robot didn't redesign itself in order to pooh.

The robot and I have no control any more over the poohing process or the pooh. The subsequent poohs and poohing is not my doing anymore. What I have no control, I am not the master - though I was the original creator of the robot.

This was just another example where even though creation A (me/humans) "created" an offspring creation (doll house/children), creation A does not "own" their sub-creation.

As above. I am not master of the process. I have loss the control to stop it, and the "sub-creations." It was my stupid error to create the original man with flaws and faults.

Another example would be intellectual properties of companies, belonging to companies, but "created" by individual employees.

Yes, created by employees, but not their legal right properties. The employees have no control or ownership.

the entity that did all the heavy lifting.

Same like the corporate companies above - they did the heavy lifting - stupid huh.

Again, you acknowledge that Adam and Eve were of the creator, even though they were free to act outside of the control of the creator. Thus, "control" is apparently the relevant factor you seem to make it out to be.

I don't I did acknowledge that. I assume your premise is that there is a creator of Adam & Eve, thus the following example of creations talk here. I don't believe there is a Creator god, but mabe a god (as in living beings whose habitat is in heaven).

Just because a creator allows freedom, doesn't mean that said creator has relinquished control. In our above examples, the robots can be destroyed or reprogrammed to no longer pooh

Yes, you can destroyed the available robots (not those that have broken into pieces), and reprogramed them again. This simply confirm that you cannot stop (therefore control) the process, only the physical robots, which basically is a composite of material elements combing to look like a robots. You still need to seek out material elements. You cannot magially make a real robot appear, then re-program it.

i.e. control

Or fixing an error. How fallible we are!

Have a nice day.

 

[Blackdog22]

I in no way from any any level of belief, agree with genocide. As far as making assumtions, look at my thread Only Absolute Proof of the Hereafter, then ask me about the "afterlife". As far as if there is a Divine God in which is responsible for "everything" the IMO; What ever it is you go through in life, rather it be good or bad, you either accept in this life "blow for blow (kind of like being in a boxing ring or something to that effect)", or you can do it after you die (point blank). Who are you or anyone else to judge (or tell the Divne) what would be good and what would not be good. I guess you can say that whatever happens, I can deal with it.

You do realize that God commited Genocide in the old testament right?

As for the part highlighted in red I would say that if God gives me a mind that concludes that genocide is wrong, then he himself commits genocide. I can say then that God is wrong based on the mind he himself gave me. If he wanted me to think that murdering millions of people was okay, because their is an afterlife, then I imagine my mind would be built with that thought process in it.