About the "Flood" ...

About the "Flood" ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BLoved -> About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 8:32:56 AM)
I am curious ... exactly what are we supposed to learn from the story of Noah's Flood? God, the creator, all knowing and all loving, decides he hates humanity so much he not only wants to drown them all, but drown every living thing along with them ... butterflies, baby birds, snails ... Exactly what did the butterflies do that God decided they have to go too? And as for the manner of wiping out humanity: drowning ... has anyone thought of what it was like for all the newborns and toddlers? And what of their parents, struggling to keep their children alive? And after all this destruction and misery, God the all-knowing feels bad and promises never to do it again. Didn't God know he'd feel this way before he drowned everything? Was there no more humane way for God to have wiped out humanity without causing suffering and without killing off the butterflies? Was God limited in imagination? Considering this is the god of Jesus, I am curious as to how this incident fits within the paradigm that God is a loving god.

Thadius -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:00:32 AM)
I suggest that is the reasoning behind the different approach in the second and final covenants made, and hence fits within the paradigm of God being a loving but venegeful god. I have read in places that the flood helps explain and fit evolution into the whole mix. Is this accurate? Who knows, I wasn't there. It could be argued at least partially that God was cleaning the gene pool. I believe the bible even references this motive, granted it was referring to the removal of the Canaanites and Nephilim. At least God didn't take burning alive off the table for future cleansings. [;)] Which allows for the possibility of some extreme global warming. Interesting topic.

SaintIntensity -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:05:02 AM)
we learn that plagiarism has been around for a long, long time (probably about 30-45 minutes less than writing itself) (the Epic of Atrahasis and all that) oh - and that there is no god, for a real god would not need to have stories stolen to represent him two things then - pretty educational all in all

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:17:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaintIntensity we learn that plagiarism has been around for a long, long time (probably about 30-45 minutes less than writing itself) (the Epic of Atrahasis and all that) oh - and that there is no god, for a real god would not need to have stories stolen to represent him two things then - pretty educational all in all I wasn't looking to get into a discussion of the accuracy of the account, nor from where it is derived. I was more curious as to how Christians interpret the story of the Flood. What do they believe we should learn from it? For example, when God was making Adam and Eve (according to Genesis), He knew He would be drowning all humanity in the not-so-distant future, so why make Adam and Eve? Why not make Mr. and Mrs. Noah instead? And another thing. If you read Genesis you see God established no rules, no ten commandments, and no priesthood to make sure people knew what was expected of them. So what did humanity do that was so bad as to deserve a world-wide flood, and why did God not take remedial steps before things got so bad? I mean, it worries me when mere mortals can out-think God and are more compassionate when dispensing justice.

Moonhead -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:18:34 AM)
The main thing I learned from the flood is that freshwater fish can survive quite happily in the sea. There's no mention of Noah having a fishtank on the ark, is there? How did any freshwater fish survive? Then there's the fact that the ark's dimensions don't match it's volume. From this I learned that Noah was Doctor Who...

subrob1967 -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:24:56 AM)
That when God takes a piss on the world, it's better to be the tidy bowl man, rather than the turd that gets flushed down the toilet.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:33:08 AM)
Water is symbolic of cleansing and rebirth. It isn't only Christian religions that reference a flood as a form of divine retribution, cleansing and rebirth. In fact, if you research many religions that pre-date Christianity, you will find a similar story of a flood in them. Why do you think it is, that so many religions hold symbolic significance to the cleansing properties of water?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:03:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance Water is symbolic of cleansing and rebirth. It isn't only Christian religions that reference a flood as a form of divine retribution, cleansing and rebirth. In fact, if you research many religions that pre-date Christianity, you will find a similar story of a flood in them. Why do you think it is, that so many religions hold symbolic significance to the cleansing properties of water? Flooding is a world-wide phenomenon that would have a serious impact on any culture developing near a body of water or river. With temperate climates you have the seasonal floods from the melting of snow. More tropical climates experienced monsoons/hurricanes. And I suspect tribal memories transmitted through stories of the past involving tidal waves or the catastrophic failure of ice dams or simply the rise in sea levels that followed the glacial age.

Kirata -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:07:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I suggest that is the reasoning behind the different approach in the second and final covenants made, and hence fits within the paradigm of God being a loving but venegeful god. I would be inclined to suggest that gods who throw genocidal tantrums, feel bad afterward, and finally decide to offer us a better deal, are the stuff of myth -- which can be productively mined for an understanding of ourselves, but not taken as a literal depiction of the ultimate ground of our being. K.

Thadius -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:16:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I suggest that is the reasoning behind the different approach in the second and final covenants made, and hence fits within the paradigm of God being a loving but venegeful god. I would be inclinced to suggest that gods who throw genocidal tantrums, feel bad afterward, and finally decide to offer us a better deal, are the stuff of myth -- which can be productively mined for an understanding of ourselves, but not as a literal depiction of the ultimate ground of our being. K. My friend, How goes the old saying... In the begining God created man, and in gratitude man created God. I wonder how the future will reflect on the teaching of the modern prophets and their prophecies of impending floods and death.[;)] As always, Thadius

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:19:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I would be inclinced to suggest that gods who throw genocidal tantrums, feel bad afterward, and finally decide to offer us a better deal, are the stuff of myth -- which can be productively mined for an understanding of ourselves, but not as a literal depiction of the ultimate ground of our being. No argument there. But within Christianity, this is yet another aspect of God and the information is provided for our enlightenment, and there is precious little wiggle-room to avoid saying it is presented as historical fact. So how does one explain how "Our Father, who art in heaven" one day suffered a melt-down and not only drowned all his 'children' but went out of His way to destroy every living thing on His property? Far from appearing to be a God of Love, I see a god who hates us so much he'd be just as happy to wipe out everything just to be rid of us.

Musicmystery -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:30:28 AM)
quote: I wasn't looking to get into a discussion of the accuracy of the account, nor from where it is derived. Well then it means whatever the fuck you decide it means. Selective scholarship at it's best.

Kirata -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:30:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved So how does one explain how "Our Father, who art in heaven" one day suffered a melt-down and not only drowned all his 'children' but went out of His way to destroy every living thing on His property? I don't see any need to. There are more than a dozen places where Christ refers to what the people have been taught only to continue with, "but I say..." something different. Kinda suggests he felt their understanding of God was lacking, eh? So why would it be necessary to reconcile what he taught with that? K.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I wasn't looking to get into a discussion of the accuracy of the account, nor from where it is derived. Well then it means whatever the fuck you decide it means. Selective scholarship at it's best. I don't think you understand, K. You are talking of the history of the story. I am speaking of a religious conviction that states that the god who drowned the world in Genesis is the god spoken of in the Sermon on the Mount. I do not understand how someone can say the two are one, and I am curious as to whether anyone who does believe this can explain why.

Thadius -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:50:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I wasn't looking to get into a discussion of the accuracy of the account, nor from where it is derived. Well then it means whatever the fuck you decide it means. Selective scholarship at it's best. I don't think you understand, K. You are talking of the history of the story. I am speaking of a religious conviction that states that the god who drowned the world in Genesis is the god spoken of in the Sermon on the Mount. I do not understand how someone can say the two are one, and I am curious as to whether anyone who does believe this can explain why. There are a multitude of reasons why people are able to put the 2 together and believe without question. I suggest you look at the psychology of mankind for your answer. As an example, look at an abused woman, she is beaten over and over again sometimes within an inch of her life, and when asked why she doesn't leave the answer is "I love him and he loves me." or something similar. I am by no means comparing God to an abusive partner, but using the mentality portrayed in such a situation to highlight the whys and wherefores.. Know what I mean?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:50:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved So how does one explain how "Our Father, who art in heaven" one day suffered a melt-down and not only drowned all his 'children' but went out of His way to destroy every living thing on His property? I don't see any need to. There are more than a dozen places where Christ refers to what the people have been taught only to continue with, "but I say..." something different. Kinda suggests he felt their understanding of God was lacking, eh? So why would it be necessary to reconcile what he taught with that? Because the basis for Christ's legitimacy rests in the prophecies of the old testament. Jesus is alleged to have fulfilled the prophecies, thus his claim to be the Messias is true. The god of the old testament is the god of the new. Christians cannot abandon the JHV*H of the old testament. And so I ask, in what way are we to be enlightened by the tale of Noah's Flood?

Musicmystery -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:51:31 AM)
And I'm saying you want to arbitrarily set the context of the question. As long as you do, it means whatever you set it up to mean. K? This story goes back to Sumeria (Epic of Gilgamesh). Why do you think they had it? Why wouldn't it be an actual coming to terms with a flood of some sort? And why would a later repetition of it suddenly have different, divorced meaning? An investigation where you decide ahead of time what's valid or not is not an investigation--it's selling your assumptions. So you're going to find what you already think you'll find. No mystery here.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:54:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Know what I mean? Yes. But I also keep in mind that for almost 2000 years Christianity has occupied some of the most intelligent minds on the planet. The Flood is one of several blips they always seem to overlook.

Thadius -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 11:03:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Know what I mean? Yes. But I also keep in mind that for almost 2000 years Christianity has occupied some of the most intelligent minds on the planet. The Flood is one of several blips they always seem to overlook. If I am not mistaken, Judaism and Islam also teach this story. So are you focusing more on the "pacifist" teaching of the New Testament and how they seem to be in conflict with the Old Testament? Further, taking one incident and trying to draw a conclusion on the whole faith seems a bit disingenuous. Afterall, what does the story of Job tell us in comparison to the teaching of Jesus? How about the assumption of free will, when there are plenty of examples in which free will was forced into submission to get the desired result (i.e. Jonah).

Jeffff -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 11:03:43 AM)
Old testament Vs. New testament. 2 different books written largely for 2 different audiences. Jeffwey of Nazareth (PA. where they build Martin Guitars)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875