was reading about noah's ark...something captured my attention...
In the Genesis narrative, God observes that humanity is corrupt and decides to destroy all life.
So god observed that humanity is corrupt...god forgot that humans are mere one of species of millions of species and to punish humans what he does?...he sends water pouring till everything gets wiped out!!!!!!!...
Now god does ask noah to built ark and have animals too in it...now god who created world , why didnt he do smart work...he is so powerful than why didnt he simply vanish human species instead of bringing on flood and wiping out other species who where not corrupted??????
secondly didnt god know that humanity would get corrupted...if yes why did god not do anything about it when he created humans at first place?...
also why does god love punishment...why did god drown human beings instead of finishing them in one go?....
I get what you're saying. The whole thing does seem a little strange. But it turns out modern science has illustrated a glaring error in how early Genesis has been interpreted traditionally. The correct context actually clears things up considerably.
Obviously we know the first human didn't actually show up just 6,000 years ago. Homo sapiens date back a good 200,000 years. And we obviously know the entire planet has not been covered in water for nearly 4 billion years.
Though many still read Genesis that way because they are ...
a) believers that put more stock in the bible than science, not understanding that what they're actually defending is the human interpretation of Genesis formed centuries ago
b) non-believers who think the whole thing's mythology and take the word of believers who say that's what it says
However, if you're a weirdo like me that takes both science and the bible as absolutely certain then it becomes obvious that Genesis isn't even saying that. That's just a human interpretation because we had no way of knowing any better. Now we do.
Genesis actually says other humans existed before Adam. It also says people other than Noah and his family survived the flood, so it wasn't global. It turns out these other humans that lived both before and after the flood are an important part of the story.
The humans created at the end of Genesis 1 were the early humans up through homo sapiens. We now know that early humans accomplished exactly what the humans created in Genesis 1 were told to do. They had fully populated and subdued the earth, and had established themselves as the dominant species of the entire planet, by roughly 10,000 BC. So, this means those humans did exactly what the will of God was.
Starting with Adam, and all throughout the rest of the bible, humans couldn't hardly do anything God said. They broke every rule repeatedly. Even Adam and Eve, who only had 1 rule, broke it. This means that Adam was the first human with free will, or a will apart from God's.
Genesis 6 starts off by explaining why the flood was necessary. The first 3 verses have always been really confusing to people for centuries because everyone thought Adam and his family were the only humans in existence at that point. Now that we know that's not the case it makes a lot more sense.
It says that the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and married whichever ones they chose and had children by them. It then says that humans are mortal and only live 120 years just one chapter after it says that Adam and his descendants lived for centuries.
So, now we know that the 'sons of God' were Adam's descendants and the 'daughters of humans' were the early humans. Early humans lived in harmony with nature for centuries, or lived according to God's will. Starting with Adam humans had a mind of their own. So when the two bloodlines mixed, wickedness was the result. Wickedness is only possible through free will.
Because this wicked element was only in the Mesopotamian region, the flood would only have to be in that region. In fact, that region is basically built for it and has flooded often in the past few thousand years. It's the geological equivalent of a storm drain. A perfect location to place a potentially destructive element like free will.
So, God chose one descendant of Adam to carry on, told him to build a boat, and asked him to save each species of animal in the region as well. About a 100 years or so after the flood, God then spread free will throughout the rest of the world by dispersing roughly 50 of Noah's descendants out into an already populated world, each with their own language and each with a really compelling flood story. Civilizations then began to spring up all around the world.
now if what u said happened why would god promote something which would bring wickedness?...was god testing humans or testing his own ability to create who operate according to what god wanted his creations in particular fashion?
I think it was more to show us. Basically, if you're God you've got these options....
a) No existence
b) Existence with every living thing doing exactly what you say
c) Existence with beings with their own minds and wills
The problem is, when you have the power of creation and invention as we do, and a will of your own, you can do a lot of damage. We, being newly created beings, don't have eons of existence and experience to fully understand the ramifications of our actions. We just do what we want to do.
That, in my mind at least, is the whole point of this life. It's so we can live with free will. We have a temporary life here where we can experience truly free will for a handful of decades. Then, in the next life, we'll all have the full extent of human history basically as a guide to show what not to do. What ultimately happens. This existence will basically give us the knowledge and understanding to wield free will responsibly.
Well, the whole thing about the flood usually ignores the evil nature of animals. It's dog eat dog out there. Those little suckers were lucky they were given space on the ark. I'd have put in a few begonias and maybe a rhododendron where the snakes laid up. That decision alone would be my primary beef with God.
animals do not necessarily have an evil nature. Animals act on instinct. Instinct without morals to guide them or a rational mind to reason the thing out. They merely wait for the highest impulse and then do what that highest impulse dictates. So evil cannot actually be applied to animals, only by human perception can their deeds be evil.
Begonias and rhododendrons were not native to that part of the world and since we have them today where they are supposed be on the planet, there was no need to bring them along, also... the space the flowers would have taken up was probably better used for the animals and humans that were on the ark.
Ok, first of all your reading this story from the wrong perspective. Are you a Christian? If your not then this story or any other part of the Bible wouldn't make any sense to you at all. There is a verse of Scripture that declares that Spiritual things cannot be understood by a carnal person because they need th Holy Spirit to discern the meaning.
God is a just God and He's not like a man that can and will lie. His promises are true and true. The Bible also states that if we don't live by faith it's impossible to please God. There are many unexplained mysteries as to why and how God does things. Some of them can be answered by careful study and prayer and others are just none of our business and we must accept somethings by faith.
God is just God....thats my whole point...how can just god do unjustice to innocent animals who wherent corrupted or do animals dont matter to just god?....secondly who decides it is none of our business?...lack of understanding makes us say so or because it doesnot make definition fit in just god theme , it makes us say so?
I just wish that when people posted their elaborate answers they also posted their credentials, otherwise these are all just speculations. HeadlyvonNoggin, where did you get your information? What you said is interesting and it looks like you gave it a lot of thought, but why should we believe it? (not trying to be disrespectful).
I realize you are talking about severe punishment (as in wiping people oft he face of the earth), and I know there is so much mystery to who God is and why He does the things He does, but I wanted to throw out some verses that help shed light on why God disciplines/punishes His children. These verses obviously address punishment that does not involve death...
“Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. For He wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal.” Job 5:17,18
"And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”
7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Hebrews 12:5-11
God always has a purpose and a reason for His discipline.... even if we don't understand.
I'm reading through the Bible in a year and I was actually just reading in exodus the other day and I had to laugh. Moses is leading the Israelites to the promise land and they have been whining and complaining and worship false gods the entire way etc. Then at this point God says...
"Go up to this land that flows with milk and honey. But I will not travel among you, for you are a stubborn and rebellious people. If I did, I would surely destroy you along the way.” Exodus 3:33
You can just sense the anger and frustration God has experienced putting up with their unrighteousness. Makes me wonder how God is feeling up in His throne today...
Seriously, we don't need your input if there's nothing of substance to it. There are plenty of other threads out there for you to inject your own personal brand of uselessness. There's actually a conversation going on here. If you have something relevant to add, please do. If not, please move along.
Useful OR witty. Emile R's response above was funny. I never have a problem with wit and humor, but at least put some effort into it.
Yes, it really must stick in the craw of believers who don't want their obvious mysteries revealed.
Showing that your God is in fact angry and frustrated may also show it rubs off on His followers, too.
The only problem is you haven't revealed anything relevant. Nothing useful. You just make your dismissive comment based on your own short-sighted view of life, with nothing to back up your reasoning, and append an emoticon. Sometimes it's just the emoticon. Why don't you take a moment, gather your thoughts, and write a hub. This is a site for writers after all.
True, it was actually QueenOfTheHouse who revealed God is angry and frustrated. I simply agreed.
Reality backs up our views of life with no help from anyone, especially from those who believe their religious fantasies have something to do with life.
Religious beliefs are a part of life as well. Real or not, based on a real God or not, they are there because they were born of the conscious human mind, which exists. It's part of existence.
If you're dealing only with the physical world, then the physical sciences are adequate. But if you're talking about existence, that includes everything that exists. So that includes both the natural and the social sciences. That whole other branch of science that exists for everything that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the natural sciences. In other words, everything born of human consciousness.
Is human consciousness the only thing in existence like it? We don't know. We can't even detect it scientifically and we know it exists. So who's to say that's all there is? We simply don't know.
Yes, religious indoctrination is a fact of life and our existence. Funny how you admit God may be "real or not" when you say that.
Once again, using obvious and elementary logical fallacies to support your irrational beliefs doesn't work. Deal with it.
And once again you give me nothing I can use. Your entire counter-argument seems to be, "So what? You're wrong. Deal with it." What exactly am I supposed to do with that? If you see logical fallacies that I cannot, then you're in a position where you could help. You choose instead just to laugh at me. So now all I've got is that this one guy thinks I'm wrong. He didn't say why or how, just that my logic is flawed. I've got nowhere to go. Conversation done. A Troubled Man has made his ruling. It is absolute according to him. No need to justify it with any sort of substance. I'm just supposed to deal with it.
The problem is, the one and only time you did actually include anything with any real substance, you turned out to be wrong. So now, to me, your word is not absolute. Your logic appears flawed due to a huge blind spot caused by your obvious disdain for religious beliefs in general. And I know that at least one fact that you use as your foundation to build your logical views off of was incorrect. So, until you can convince me otherwise, I am convinced there is nothing of value to be gained from you.
I know you're a smart guy. I can even see that through your obnoxious posts. I just wish you would use it. We might all learn something.
Of course, there's nothing you can use as it doesn't align with your irrational beliefs.
Putting words in my mouth? Where did I say that? I said "So what?" because you're response was irrelevant. Deal with it.
Then, as a "writer" shouldn't you have taken the time to learn something about logical fallacies rather than others having to hold your hand?
For a religious belief, I would agree with the fact you have nothing to gain from reality, other than the loss of delusion and ignorance.
Until you actually take the time to understand your religious beliefs are just mythical and superstitious nonsense, you won't learn much at all.
First off, the 'logical fallacies' that I assume you're referring to are the ones that can be found on various 'How to debate a theist' websites/handbooks. You've 'invoked' a couple in particular by name (like 'appeal to popularity fallacy', or whatever) so I assume that's what you're talking about.
See, the key you're missing here is the purpose of those are to help atheists not get drug down into some illogical discussion unnecessarily. To help you stay on point while debating. See, that's the key. It's to assist DEBATING. As in, a discussion between two opposing viewpoints. Key word 'discussion'. Back and forth. Give and take. Ebb and flow.
I know what you're talking about, but often am not sure you do. You throw them out there like they're some kind of trump card that covers everything, most times out of context of their original intent. This is usually a sign of someone who hasn't necessarily thought these things out for themselves. They're more just repeating other things they've heard or read, yet apparently don't fully comprehend. I believe some refer to it as 'parroting'.
That's not what these 'logical fallacies' are for. They're supposed to be used by you to stay out of those debate traps you'll often run into while discussing this kind of topic with someone more spiritually minded. They're to keep debates on course. I've spoken to many believers on this forum and others, and can understand why there would be a need for these. Unfortunately, while you seem to be aware of them, you instead use them as a license to not have to think for yourself.
Nope. But, actual "writers" would know what they were or where to find them.
Considering your constant use of logical fallacies and the inability for you to understand them, you are not discussing or debating.
Sure, if you continue to use logical fallacies all the time, you'll hear them repeated quite often and it will begin to sound like parroting after a while.
What does "spiritually minded" mean other than delusional?
Is you say so. Keep up the good work.
@QueenOfTheHouse but that land is not full of honey and milk...is it?...coming to god's frustration ...He needs to be frustrated about himself and his ability to create...If he knows future , he should be comfortable with what was/is happening instead of being frustrated or angry...HE created and if it didnt turn out way he expected , how can he be allknowing being and if he knew , how can he be frustrated?
He created exactly what He meant to. Beings with free will. Knowing how somebody's going to react or behave ahead of time makes it no less frustrating.
Like parents raising children. A parent can know a child well enough to know how they'll behave, but it's still no less frustrating when they do exactly what you know they're going to. They're young and willful, ignorant of life, and ignorant of their behavior and the ramifications that result. They have to learn. You have to let them make mistakes. We learn through experience.
You can tell people what to do. Don't eat that fruit. Keep these 10 commandments. People simply can't just be told. We're human. We wonder why. We wonder what the point is. We wonder 'what if?'.
Just like this forum. Many people are skeptical of God. Skeptical of religion. Humans are willful and are resistant to believing something they don't understand. There's always an element that questions.
We are children. In the billions of years of this existence the entirety of human history is the equivalent of the blink of an eye. Less. We simply do not know how to weild free will responsibly. There's too much we simply don't understand. We have to experience it. We have to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. We're human. Like children, we often think we know better. That we somehow gained enough knowledge to decree with absolute certainty the nature of things. We don't.
Especially where Noah is concerned. This is a story that had been passed down and was already widely accepted among the Israelites before Moses. As stories go, it grew as it was told and re-told. Gilgamesh is an older version of the same story. A guy saving his farm animals and family from a flood isn't that farfetched, and the nature of God is misunderstood, especially by those who preach "his" word. You may notice that God has all of the emotions and shortcomings which exist in man.
I do agree the things that make us human are things we have in common with God. We only consider them 'shortcomings' because of how we use them.
As for Noah's flood, I do think it was a rather large event, but not on a global scale as it's often been read. During the time of Genesis the 'world' was basically from one horizon to the other. They had no concept of the full size of the planet. A large flood in the Mesopotamian valley, of which there were many between 4000 and 2000 BC, was most likely what it's speaking about.
But I don't think it was a small story that just got embelleshed as time went on. Early Genesis is very specific. Especially the first few books dealing with the flood and everything that came before. As I illustrate in a hub, the first chapter that details creation is extremely accurate. I think the next few chapters are as well, we just never had the right context to fully understand what it was actually describing. Now, through science, we do.
Genesis, through the events at the tower of Babel explain how God created the world we know now. He created the heavens and the earth. He populated the planet with life, populated it with humans, then created a human with free will. After nearly 1700 years of existence, with these free willed humans multiplying and having children with early humans (Genesis 6:1-3) a wicked element had arisen. So God chose Noah as the descendant to carry on and sent the flood to wipe out the wickedness.
Then Noah's descendants were dispersed out into an already populated world in all directions with free will, unique languages, knowledge of civilization and building, and all of them were aware of the flood. A story that's echoed in numerous ancient civilizations all around the world. This is what I believe early Genesis is describing.
Jesus mentions the flood and noah also which means there is truth to it.
A story about a fellah saving not only his farm animals but wild animals as well is not that far fetched but when you think; he was in a desert and such a very very long way from water, it is a scenario that people of God are familiar with: God puts people in situations that make no sense and produces brilliance out of it.
Since gilgamesh recants the story of the flood, there must have been a flood, for we see that although the date of gilgamesh predates what moses wrote we also know that moses wrote after the enslavement of the hebrews after they left egypt so the date may be later but doesn't make either gilgamesh more relevant or moses telling less relevant, also, we notice that the gilgamesh boat is not sea worthy at all and that the story is less dynamic, these two aspects speak of more credibility on the moses telling because the detail and accuracy of moses show a more in depth knowledge of the tale and does not show a second hand account to the flood. The people in the flood for moses have a better historical evidence of existing than does gilgamesh.
So although there is a gilgamesh writing pertaining to the flood it is just secular witness that there was a flood and unlike the mythical qualities in gilgamesh, moses, sober and exacting telling shows that God, who produced the flood was behind the bible account of this flood and quite able to add much more detail.
God having emotions and shortcomings is a human perception. God has passions like we do for WE, both male and female are aspects of God - woman for her emotional sensibililties and man for his linear processes - but to say that God handles his passions toward the human race like we humans do is completely not correct at all.
We merely mimic the divine we can never be more than the image of God. To say that God has any shortcomings at all is quite disrespectful and also wrong
God punishes the bad in you .... doing this he want to make sure good comes out ....
God never loves punishment. If you are against God. He will punish you to correct you. Noah's flood is a good lesson to humanity that God does not like the sins of the world.
God never loves punishment. If you are against God. He will punish you to correct you. Noah's flood is a good lesson to humanity that God does not like the sins of the world.
And, that is the lesson you have learned from God in how to treat others? Funny though, when people are dead, how can they be corrected?
@jiro forget human race, what about animals...what wrong they did?...or noah's story is perfect example that god doesnot care about animals?
by Julie McFarland4 years ago
I was a missionary in the christian faith for years. I went to a bible college. I've read the bible - at least a dozen times, cover to cover. I've studied the dogmas, the doctrines and the theology -...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 years ago
Why God created nations and religions and why he made them to fight with each other? Does God enjoys wars?
by Julianna4 months ago
Why does God give children to those who abuse them? This has been a question that I have been trying to find an answer for. Discussing this through the years I honestly am looking for a true understanding of why? There...
by Jeremy Christian5 years ago
The assumption that the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 are two depictions of the same event is the one thing that makes Genesis seem so disconnected with our modern view of earth's history....
by Jesus was a hippy11 months ago
God created everything including the concept of sin, and he created people that he knew would sin before he created them so why did he deliberately create people who he knew would do things that he claimed are...
by Mark Knowles7 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.