Why Would Noah's Flood Have Been the Best Way for God to Cleanse the Earth?

[metis]

Job is also largely regarded as being a morality tale. He was not an actual human being. Which is a good thing if you are a Christian because God acted rather abominably in that story.

The idea that God has this supposed bet with Satan on causing Job to suffer simply doesn't make any sense, imo, so I'm with ya.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that God has this supposed bet with Satan on causing Job to suffer simply doesn't make any sense, imo, so I'm with ya.

And that as part of that bet that God allowed Job's family to die horrible deaths. It paints God as evil as Satan if one takes it literally.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The idea that God has this supposed bet with Satan on causing Job to suffer simply doesn't make any sense,................

God had the recorded bet in the Bible recorded at Job 2:4-5.
Satan was saying we only worship God for what He can give us.
So, the challenge was to ' to touch our flesh......' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God.
The only way to answer Satan's challenge is outlined in the Bible book of Job.
Both Job and Jesus under bad-adverse conditions remained faithful to God.
They proved Satan a liar and so can we.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God had the recorded bet in the Bible recorded at Job 2:4-5.
Satan was saying we only worship God for what He can give us.
So, the challenge was to ' to touch our flesh......' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God.
The only way to answer Satan's challenge is outlined in the Bible book of Job.
Both Job and Jesus under bad-adverse conditions remained faithful to God.
They proved Satan a liar and so can we.

So it was okay for God to allow Satan to destroy Job's family? He had his wife and children killed. God is rather vain if he needs to win that sort of bet.

 

[rational experiences]

In a human theism.

You're standing because you live as a human on earth as a human pretending you knew how you got created.

As it's pretend.

As a human you live within a balanced heavens 12 day 12 clear cold night.

Night can't turn into day and day can't turn into night.

As night is human witnessed exact.
As day is human witnessed exact.

Pretty basic teaching ...how ....why man scientists are liars and always were.

Natural life and not human thinking was first.
....if your claim is I talk on behalf of god...God doesn't talk.

O earths and heavens is natural mass.

To prove humans lie. Animals don't talk words either.

So in two places self human talking and God. If you talk on behalf of god God is natural history not man history.

If you tell nothing but the truth so help me God.

A humans teaching about human man theists. They lie for self purpose.

 

[rational experiences]

Purpose the bible.

It was a spiritual mans thesis based upon the human science man satanic theist and why human life by invention had caused the sacrifice of life.

Temple technology.

As mass existed first maths didn't.

 

[David Davidovich]

I haven't asked Adam what his intention was. It seems to me from the account that he gave away his life because he didn't like what was happening to Eve, knowing she would die.

But didn't Jesus not like what he was going through in Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42? Therefore, why did Jesus' love cause him not to betray God, but Adam's didn't? Or did he even have love for God?

 

[rational experiences]

If you were a rational human. Born a human baby by sex why are you suddenly important?

As only said by other humans?

Why don't you challenge I'm not important yourself and accept a human only inferred title?

Reason history because men who thought self entitled was the designer of great buildings civilisation first. Forced false ownership status of brothers as men agreement.

Even taught they had falsely only after when civilisation was destroyed by rich man's sciences control.

Hence science technology made title only Rich man.

So did science rich man heal come back in DNA?

Yes. Thought self special even agreed

Why religious preachings use science human thesis.

Latest scientist DNA returned sacrificed mutated. Was Stephen Hawking still entitled superior?

Yes.

And I didn't admire him like you all did.

Is my female mother's teaching women abused by rich man designer science history.

 

[David Davidovich]

Before I even attempt to answer that insofar as my understanding goes, I'd like to know how you feel about dying. Do you like the thought that's what life is?

I don't think that any sound person or even animals want to die. It's a natural instinct that living creatures want to live and try to stay alive. Plus, for intelligent creatures, there's the issue of being concerned about the loved ones that you don't want to leave behind. However, death is a natural part of life, and it doesn't scare me like it does some people. Also, I think that the younger a person is, the more that they fear death.

in other words, we're born and then die with no reasonable hope that there's more to the circumstances than evolution purports? Remember I asked you if you're "ok" with the general concept of evolution. Mainly that we're born and then we die.

A lot of religious people mock and criticize the theory of evolution, even though they really have no idea what it is other than saying that humans came from monkeys:

Theory[edit]
Main article: Scientific theory

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the definition of the word in colloquial use. In the vernacular, "theory" can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions.

In science, however, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."[22] Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them. In the case of evolution through natural selection, Darwin conceived the hypothesis around 1839, and made a first draft of the concept three years later in 1842. He discussed this widely with many of his intellectual companions, and conducted further research in the background to his other writings and work. After years of development, he finally published his evidence and theory in On the Origin of Species in 1859.[23]

The "theory of evolution" is actually a network of theories that created the research program of biology. Darwin, for example, proposed five separate theories in his original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:

1. populations changing over generations
2. gradual change
3. speciation
4. natural selection
5. common descent[24]

Since Darwin, evolution has become a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains numerous empirical observations in the natural world. Evolutionary theories continue to generate testable predictions and explanations about living and fossilized organisms.[25][26][page needed]

Phylogenetic theory is an example of evolutionary theory. It is based on the evolutionary premise of an ancestral descendant sequence of genes, populations, or species. Individuals that evolve are linked together through historical and genealogical ties. Evolutionary trees are hypotheses that are inferred through the practice of phylogenetic theory. They depict relations among individuals that can speciate and diverge from one another. The evolutionary process of speciation creates groups that are linked by a common ancestor and all its descendants. Species inherit traits, which are then passed on to descendants. Evolutionary biologists use systematic methods and test phylogenetic theory to observe and explain changes in and among species over time. These methods include the collection, measurement, observation, and mapping of traits onto evolutionary trees. Phylogenetic theory is used to test the independent distributions of traits and their various forms to provide explanations of observed patterns in relation to their evolutionary history and biology.[27][page number verification needed][28][page needed] The neutral theory of molecular evolution is used to study evolution as a null model against which tests for natural selection can be applied.​

click here: Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia

Now, answer my question please.

 

[David Davidovich]

YoursTrue said: ↑
We're speaking here of the very first man ever created.
Because Adam was a unique creation, the rest of humanity was, shall we say, in his genes.

But that still doesn't answer my question as to you stating "that a perfect man would not throw it all away."
Because what I was asking was: Why did you say that a perfect man would not throw it all away? What difference does it make whether or not he was perfect?

 

[David Davidovich]

Answer me this: some scientists or intellectuals warn about the destruction of the world, things like the sun burning out, pollution ruining the earth, mass death in war, disease, etc. I wonder why be concerned if one is an atheist?

First of all, I don't go by the label of atheist, but instead an unbeliever. Also, as I said in my previous post, it's a natural instinct to want to live, therefore, it why wouldn't it be a concern for a person who doesn't share your religious belief/

If the ultimate goal of human life is to die, why even wonder about what happens to the earth and the population after a person dies?

That's a strawman argument because no one other than yourself said that the ultimate goal of human life is to die. Also, for many people, it's natural instinct and 'fellow feeling' for people to care about other people and to care about society and the future of the earth. However, unfortunately and inaccurately, many scriptures depict non believers or former believers as heartless, selfish monsters who only look out for themselves.

 

[David Davidovich]

I would say 'being proved' to ALL in Heaven (angelic life) and ALL on Earth.

But why would it need to be proved to all angelic life? Why would creatures with intelligent minds and hearts have doubts about God? Also, how exactly is this being proved to all on earth?

We are all given ' enough rope', so to speak, to do with it what we want.
First, Gen. 1:28 would have to be fulfilled (Earth populated) thus showing if mankind can govern himself.
In other words, the passing of time would allow for all of us to be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.

But what about people who have never even thought about that?

Man's long history 'is the now' that shows that man can't successfully govern his step.

The present is always "now"... depending on your viewpoint of physics.

Thus, God needs to step in before all righteous ones on Earth are gone.

But for most religious people, doesn't "righteous people" mean people who believe the same way as they do? Also, if someone is good, decent, caring, kind, generous, and loving, then that person would be disqualified because they didn't have the same religious belief as you (or depending on one's denomination) do?

No one can now say that man can prove to successfully tackle the now too BIG international problems.

So, is that what God has been worried about all this time?

So, when the powers in charge are saying, " Peace and Security..." the opposite will prove true.

I'm glad that you brought up that scripture. It would be nice to have a discussion on that.

 

[David Davidovich]

To me, apocalyptic-religious beliefs are based on the 'good news' found in Revelation - please see Revelation 22:2.

Well, not until you get into an apocalyptic religion. Because after that, it's all about fearing when the end of the world comes and making sure that you follow all of your religion's rules.

Wicked/violent people being fear ( who leaves doors unlocked and feel safe )

I'm not sure what you meant by that one.

We all have the opportunity to 'repent' so as Not to 'perish' (be destroyed - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22) - 2 Peter 3:9

That sure does sound like a threat to me.

TSo, to pray to God for 'Jesus to come' is Not fear based but necessary for genuine Peace on Earth.
Peace on Earth as described at Micah 4:3-4; Isaiah 2:4. - Come Lord Jesus !

Yes. Peace on earth would be nice.

 

[David Davidovich]

To, me it was possible for imperfect Job (Job 2:4-5) to be tested / tempted. Satan challenges all of us.

Yep. And that proves my point exactly.

Satan tested/ tempted perfect Jesus so it was also possible for Jesus to choose.

So, it sounds as if God was betting the whole fate of the universe of a creature's free will.

Jesus never said to Satan 'you can't offer me all the kingdoms/governments of the world', thus showing that Satan could offer them to Jesus for an act of worship.
Perfect (sinless) Adam proved faith-less in what was least.
Perfect (sinless) Jesus proved faithful in what was MUCH.

I see. However, now what exactly was the problem with Adam? Also, are we really comparing like-to-like, or was there a significant difference between as to why Jesus was successful, but Adam wasn't?

I think Adam had love for God, however, when Satan through Eve tempted/tested that love, Adam chose Eve.

See my question above.

James 1:13-15 helps us see that each person is drawn out by one's one desire.
Adam's desire (by choice) thus changed from love of God to a love of God's creation.
Seems Adam did Not want to live without Eve, thus showing Adam did Not have enough trust in his God and Father.

So, how does James 1:13-15 apply to Satan when he was an angel? I think that I had asked you that previously.

 

[David Davidovich]

Wow, yes, how or why would someone with a perfect start go so far south ( to his coming destruction )
Satan not only had love for God, but God also had GREAT love for Satan - please see Ezekiel 28:13-15
Cherubic angelic Satan would have always had the special distinction (among all the other angels) of having the Honor to watch over human creation, instead Satan decided he wanted humans to worship him.

LOL I don't mean to laugh to mock you, however, why in heavens would Satan's love for God fail and he would reason in his mind that being worshipped by humans would be better? However, if he didn't start off as perfect, then that would make sense to me.

 

[David Davidovich]

God had the recorded bet in the Bible recorded at Job 2:4-5.
Satan was saying we only worship God for what He can give us.

Betting with Satan sounds petty and dangerous to me.

So, the challenge was to ' to touch our flesh......' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God.
The only way to answer Satan's challenge is outlined in the Bible book of Job.

Well, one thing that I'm wondering about is: Why would God allow something as vile and as evil to be among his assembly of perfect and holy angels? That doesn't seem to be in line with Bible principles:

click here: 2 Corinthians 6:17 "Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." (biblehub.com)

Isaiah 52:11 Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing; come out from it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the LORD. (biblehub.com)

Both Job and Jesus under bad-adverse conditions remained faithful to God.
They proved Satan a liar and so can we.

So, that sounds like Jesus' love for God didn't fail him. Also, you make it sound as if there was not any other way that God could have "proven" that Job would remain faithful to him unless he allowed him to undergo horrendous tortures. However, at the end of the story, at least God did replace Job's wife and children.

 

[David Davidovich]

God had the recorded bet in the Bible recorded at Job 2:4-5.
Satan was saying we only worship God for what He can give us.
So, the challenge was to ' to touch our flesh......' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God.

Also, I wanted to mention that one of the problems with the book of Job is that believers are willing to go through anything that their religious denomination tells them to go through, regardless of the danger that it poses to them mentally, physically, or emotionally, or to their children or family.

 

[Bree]

Thank you for your answers, but basically, you are invoking the appeal to ignorance and the appeal to authority fallacies. And those may be good answers when one doesn't really have an answer, but thank you once again for your answers.

its ok not to know everything. I dont think we humans could EVER know everything.

 

[metis]

God had the recorded bet in the Bible recorded at Job 2:4-5.
Satan was saying we only worship God for what He can give us.
So, the challenge was to ' to touch our flesh......' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God.
The only way to answer Satan's challenge is outlined in the Bible book of Job.
Both Job and Jesus under bad-adverse conditions remained faithful to God.
They proved Satan a liar and so can we.

The point is that it makes not one iota of sense to take Job at the literal level, nor must we.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God had the recorded bet in the Bible recorded at Job 2:4-5.
Satan was saying we only worship God for what He can give us.
So, the challenge was to ' to touch our flesh......' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God.
The only way to answer Satan's challenge is outlined in the Bible book of Job.
Both Job and Jesus under bad-adverse conditions remained faithful to God.
They proved Satan a liar and so can we.

I know a way that a God could "answer to Satan's challenge." Don't accept the challenge. You're God, after all. Why the obligation to accept a challenge from one of your evil minions?
It doesn't make sense for a supposedly loving God to do.