Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why was there a need for a global flood?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 46 of 68 (483400)
09-21-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Open MInd
09-21-2008 8:10 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
You know your responses are just too funny! You do not even pretend to have read my post completely. Your retorts demonstrate that you either have no idea what I am saying, or that you are just responding to every line of my post for the sake of argument.
I am simply responding to your post in a thorough way, rather than ignoring most of what my opponents say, as you have been doing. You seem to be assuming that I must not have read or understood your post, or I would agree with you. This is not the case. I understand you posts perfectly well, I'm just not swayed by your argument.
I already explained why G-d did not just go poof and destroy all of the evil. This is because he wanted to first give His creation a chance to repent.
But, given that chance (and you have not answered how the bizarre utterances of one man can reasonably be considered a chance, indistinguishable as they would have been from the rantings of a lunatic), there was no need for an actual flood. God could have issued his unconvincing warning, given his chance, had it rejected (naturally, it wasn't very convincing in the first place) and then simply disappeared mankind. The flood is pure theatre.
G-d does not enjoy destroying His creation.
If it displeases him so much, why is he depicted in the Torah as having killed so many? He doesn't stop at the flood, after all. He gets through quite a body count.
You also ask why one person's evil should affect anyone else. Let me give you a little example, do you know what peer pressure is. Are you really going to put forth the claim that people are not influenced by their surroundings? That is absurd and you know it.
I agree that those in evil surroundings will be more likely to be evil, but that still leaves free will. The very fact of free will, which you are so keen on, means that people had the freedom not to chose evil. The consequences might have been dire, but even so, they could have chosen. By simply killing them, including those unable to make their own choices, such as infants, God effectively removed their free will. Given that I do not see Noah's "warnings" as in any way convincing, or see how they could have been made known to everyone who lived, including pre-verbal children and adults with mental disabilities, I don't see any free will at all. God sent an unconvincing warning an then killed everyone when it turned out to be a barmy way of sending a message.
Trulyfree will includes the option to chose what God doesn't like. All I see here is free will being trampled on.
Furthermore, this is what Judaism says, and they are the ones that have the story of the flood. If you don't believe in Judaism, don’t believe in the flood. But, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe in, in order to mock a religion. If you really want to know what the religion has to say about its own stories, you have to accept the religious explanations.
You are right about my not believing it at all, but that still leaves me free to attack what I perceive as inconsistencies in the story, especially as regarding the morality of God's actions in slaughtering almost every living thing. Even within the realm of fiction, this stands out as being especially nasty. I don't find the apologetics very convincing, that's all.
Op-n M-nd writes:
The Torah testifies that the animals were not mating in the normal manner, and even they were engaging in sexual pleasures without the will to have children.
Granny writes:
Where exactly does it say this?
I have already said that the Torah testifies to this. It says that all flesh had corrupted their ways on the earth. Why not read the Torah before asking me?
Don't play dumb. I was asking for a citation. If you want to quote the Torah at me, you should give a chapter and verse citation. I presume that you mean Genesis 6:11-13, but it would be nice if you could actually say what you mean.
Where exactly does it say that "animals were not mating in the normal manner, and even they were engaging in sexual pleasures without the will to have children" ? Chapter and verse please.
I was explaining that you do not have any proof that any infant existed altogether.
If there were no children (a perfectly ludicrous proposition), why would God require a flood to wipe out humanty? They would have perished anyway. Did your mother never explain to you where babies come from?
I then go on to explain how the people were using birth control, and they were acting in a selfish manner when engaging in sexual pleasures.
Oh, apparently she did, but somewhere along the line, you got the idea that sex was a selfish act or somehow immoral. What a strange idea.
I was trying to point out that no people really desired to have children, and therefore you have no proof that children even existed.
Where does it say (in the Torah that is) that they had no desire to have children?
You are trying to get God of the hook here, with regards to his slaughter of the innocent. To imagine that a generation existed without children is the height of absurdity. No kids, no next generation, no need for a flood. Even imperfect birth control would leave plenty of innocent children around for God to kill.
Op-n M-ind writes:
Granny writes:
So they deserved to die because they practised birth control? Do you think that everyone who practises birth control deserves to die? Plus, if they were so keen on preventing births, why not just let mankind wipe itself out?
This makes absolutely no sense if you actually understood what I was saying. Again, why must you attack what I am saying all the time? You are picking a fight here, not looking to understand my point of view.
This is a debate board, not your pulpit. Don't imagine that I haven't heard all this before. Don't post on here expecting a soapbox, where we sit at your learned feet and have you explain the Torah to us. I've read it (in the regular English translation at any rate). I wasn't very impressed.
I did not even come close to telling you what you think. You say that you disagree and you don't even explain yourself. Also, to start, why not look at some of Agobots posts for starters. He wrote this in the Evidence of G-d thread.
From the content of Agobot's posts, I'm not sure whether or not he or she is an atheist. I confess I may have missed that post, but it is not particularly relevant here, since I disagree. What other people think, including other atheists, is a matter for them, not me. Take it up with them.
Since you ask, I do not see that God had any right to punish anybody. What would give him such a right? That he created us? Clearly the evidence is that he did not and besides, even if he did, it would not magically bestow upon him the right to murder his creations. That's what I think.
Does this mean that you are against abortion? But this is a side issue.
You're not kidding! Let's not open that particular can of worms, shall we? I don't see how the two issues are related. No-one is in favour of aborting babies in case they grow up to be evil.
I must ask you nicely to start posting as if you are serious about the debated topics. You seem to be doing nothing but attacking every single word that I write. Then you accuse me of not being open minded. Please pretend to be having a serious debate or I will discontinue any correspondence with you. You have to explain where I go wrong, and ask me about things you don't understand. If all you are going to do is attack everything I say for no good reason, there is no point in my continued response.
I just disagree with you, that's all. This is a debate board. Without disagreement, there would be little debate. But, since you ask, I'll do you a deal; I'll ease down the tone a little and stop putting hyphens in your name, if you stop starting sentences with "Atheists will say..." or some such. Deal?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Open MInd, posted 09-21-2008 8:10 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 10:38 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 59 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 8:32 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 61 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 9:27 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 66 by Open MInd, posted 09-26-2008 12:53 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 47 of 68 (483402)
09-21-2008 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Open MInd
09-21-2008 6:26 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
You are stumbling into a trap. You do not have any evidence of the flood outside of the Torah's testimony to such an event. You therefore, must accept the entire story that the Torah describes, and you can't take what you like and leave what you don't like. Noah was building the ark for about 100 years and this is enough time for everyone in the world to find out about it. Also, Noah was a well known individual, and people did not consider him to be crazy. They knew what the world was like, and they realized that G-d may cause the worlds destruction. Like I said, if you are going to believe in the story of the great flood you are going to have to accept the entire tradition about what was happening in that time. Otherwise, you can deny the idea that the flood ever existed because you have no evidence for any of it.
Now we come to the jist of the matter. Whether or not the Torah is correct. Where is the evidence that the Torah is correct and not just mythology like the Greek, Roman, Norse stories. If the Torah is mythology, and many believe this, then how can the flood be justified and why a flood in the first place. Why kill innocent children & animals?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Open MInd, posted 09-21-2008 6:26 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 5:37 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 48 of 68 (483664)
09-23-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by bluescat48
09-21-2008 11:19 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
I have already explained to you why a flood was chosen and not sudden . This was your question. This thread does not ask about the evidence for the Torah or the flood. If you have trouble with that you can discuss it elsewhere. But this has absolutely nothing to do with your question. You now ask as follows:
bluescat48 writes:
Why kill children & animals?
This has nothing to do with this thread either. Remember, your question is why a flood as opposed to sudden . I have answered this one already. You must realize that whether G-d chose a flood or sudden you would still have the problem of why G-d would kill children and animals. Therefore, this question is actually off the topic. Maybe you can start another thread with this as the topic. However, asking it here does not make my answer any less valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by bluescat48, posted 09-21-2008 11:19 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:02 PM Open MInd has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 49 of 68 (483672)
09-23-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Open MInd
09-23-2008 5:37 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
I have already explained to you why a flood was chosen and not sudden .
No you haven't, all you have done is paraphrased scripture.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 5:37 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 6:14 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 50 of 68 (483674)
09-23-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 9:29 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
Hi, Bluejay
I do not think there is any point in being rude in such a debate. I will try to point out your mistakes as nicely as possible. But, I do not want you to ignore what I am writing, and instead criticize how open minded I am. Below I have clearly given the question that started this thread:
bluescat48 writes:
It would have been simpler if "God" had simply stated all animals except Noah's family and one pair of the unclean & 7 pairs of the clean will now die. Why go through the rigamarole of a global flood. If a person believes in let there be light then why not the above. If all that is meant in creation is magic let it be all.
I think that this question clearly asks why G-d had to create a seemingly extravagant form of destruction instead of an instant . This is clearly stated by bluescat48 when he says the words "will now die." The question asks why G-d had to do anything if He was so powerful and destruction was necessary. Notice that it does not ask any of the following questions: Where is evidence for the flood? Why did G-d use a flood and not fire? Why was the world deserving of destruction? Why did the babies deserve ? Why did the animals deserve ? Even if all of these questions are completely valid, they are not being asked in this thread. I think it is clear that the question is: Why a global flood instead of instant ? This seems to be clear. Since the question is asks why a rigmarole was used instead of "die now," I have answered that "die now" would give no chance for repentance, while the rigmarole of the flood does give this chance. Again, why a flood as opposed to a pillar of salt is a different question than the one asked in this thread.
Bluejay writes:
No, you very specifically said that the Torah says this. Now, you've changed it to "the traditional interpretation." There is a significant difference there.
There is actually no difference there, and I will explain why. The Torah is written in a very cryptic manner. According to the Jewish religion, the interpretation of the Torah was given to Moses in what is called the oral tradition. There is no interpretation which you can say is what the Torah is actually stating. You may not even be able to make a coherent translation in certain verses. Of course if you are reading from a Christian translation of the Torah, you will think that this is exactly what is actually written in the text itself. But you must realize that the Christians have taken many liberties when translating the Torah. They have to make it fit with the rest of their Bible. Christians do not practice half of what is written in the actual Torah. Why would you accept their translation as being the face value interpretation of the text? The only real "translation" of the Torah is the "interpretation" in accordance with the Jewish oral tradition.
Bluejay writes:
And I will tell you like other people have told you. What if I don't want to believe the damn story? How then do you prove to me that it's true? It can be done, you know: I didn't want to believe in evolution five years ago when I first took Biology 100, but, here I am, a staunch evolutionist.
As I have already pointed out, this has nothing to do with this thread. Whether you believe in the story or not is moot. This thread does not discuss evidence of the flood, but rather it asks a very specific question: Why a rigmarole instead of "die now?" This asks nothing about whether the flood actually took place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 9:29 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:19 PM Open MInd has replied
 Message 67 by Blue Jay, posted 09-27-2008 12:03 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 68 (483676)
09-23-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 6:02 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
bluescat48 writes:
No you haven't, all you have done is paraphrased scripture.
I have answered your question. If G-d would not make a rigmarole there would be no chance for repentance. Now please explain what difficulty still remains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:02 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 52 of 68 (483677)
09-23-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Open MInd
09-23-2008 6:11 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
I have answered that "die now" would give no chance for repentance, while the rigmarole of the flood does give this chance.
again I ask how could those who knew not Noah, thus God, even attempt to repent when they would have no-one to repent to. Ie Australians, Eskimos, Maoris etc. peoples who lived thousands of kilometres from Mesopotamia. I would doubt that the Egyptians would even have heard of it.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 6:11 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 6:42 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 53 of 68 (483686)
09-23-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 6:19 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
Is there any evidence of people living in these places at that time? You are asserting that there must have been some people that did not know of G-d or Noah. I am asking you if you have any evidence of such people. Also, I already told you that this ark was being built for one hundred years. Is that not enough time for the Egyptians to hear about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:19 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:52 PM Open MInd has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 54 of 68 (483689)
09-23-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Open MInd
09-23-2008 6:42 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
s there any evidence of people living in these places at that time?
According to the following
Columbia Encyclopedia
Australian aborigines, native people of Australia who probably came from somewhere in Asia more than 40,000 years ago. In 2001 the population of aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders was 366,429, 1.9% of the Australian population as a whole and slightly more than the estimated aboriginal population of 350,000 at the time of European colonization in the late 18th cent. At that time, there were 500-600 distinct groups of aborigines speaking about 200 different languages or dialects (at least 50 of which are now extinct). Although culturally diverse, these groups were not political and economic entities and lacked class hierarchies and chiefs. They lived by hunting and gathering, and there was extensive intergroup trade throughout the continent.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 6:42 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 7:18 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 55 of 68 (483697)
09-23-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 6:52 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
Is this proof that people existed at "that time" in Australia or Alaska. I have not seen any evidence of this yet. They could have all died out before the great flood. Then more people came there after the great flood. Would the evidence be able to show that this did not happen? Furthermore, let us assume for argument sake that the whole world was populated at this time, and there was no way of these people knowing about Noah or his ark. This does not mean that G-d should give an instant to "everybody." The people that lived in the area of Noah may not have been as bad as the people in the other parts of the world. Therefore, these people deserved to have a warning. Not everyone was worthy of a warning, and the people in Alaska and Australia did not get one. Notice how you question does not destroy the reason for the flood. Furthermore, even if everyone in the world had no warning, G-d was giving everyone "time" to repent. Noah had to build the ark for one hundred years. This time was worth something even if no warning was given since the people already knew that they were doing wrong. Also, remember that Noah had 100 years until the flood. He had more than enough time to spread the word.
Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:52 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 10:45 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 58 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 10:48 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 56 of 68 (483725)
09-23-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Granny Magda
09-21-2008 11:15 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
I am sorry if you have problems with the way I have been posting until now. In the future please point out where I am going wrong before answering in a disparaging manner. I understand that we disagree on many things, but this does not mean that we have to be throwing insults. To avoid confusion, I think it is better if you paraphrase exactly what you think I am saying before you violently attack it. Otherwise, I am not sure if you are understanding what I am saying and arguing, or just throwing rebuttals without having fully understood my viewpoint.
Granny Magda writes:
But, given that chance (and you have not answered how the bizarre utterances of one man can reasonably be considered a chance, indistinguishable as they would have been from the rantings of a lunatic), there was no need for an actual flood. God could have issued his unconvincing warning, given his chance, had it rejected (naturally, it wasn't very convincing in the first place) and then simply disappeared mankind. The flood is pure theatre.
Here you are asking why G-d did not give an extremely strong warning such as widespread revelation, and then destroyed the world with the snap of a finger. You also do not think G-d gave a warning at all by telling Noah to build an ark. Now let me explain both of these issues. First of all, G-d was not required to give these sinners a warning altogether. In fact, G-d was going to destroy the entire world were it not for the righteousness of Noah (Genesis Chapter 6 verses 7 and 8). The reason why G-d did not just destroy the entire world right then and there was because He wanted to give some time for them to repent. Whether the warning was sufficient or not is moot because they did not even deserve a warning to begin with. The extra warning and time was given out of the mercy of G-d. Your next problem is that this warning was not sufficient, and if G-d wanted to save the world then he had other ways of doing it. You are recommending a revelation of G-d's presence and then a destruction of some sort. The problem with this proposal is that it goes against the whole reason for the worlds existence. G-d does not want robots or puppets. If He wanted these He could have created them. G-d wants humans that have the free will to chose good and therefore earn a reward. G-d has no use for puppets because they cannot earn a reward. If G-d will make a revelation and show his glory, the whole purpose of the world would not exist. A world of puppets is useless to G-d. If there was scientific evidence of G-d performing miracles all of the time, humans would not be able to have the proper amount of free will, and the world would not serve its purpose. Therefore, a revelation of G-d's glory is completely useless for the purpose of this world. Now if G-d wanted he could have destroyed the world in a miraculous manner having given the humans enough time to repent. However, where would Noah and his children have their free will from. Seeing the power of G-d, they would have no choice to do bad anymore, and there would be no purpose in the world anymore. However, we do see that one of Noah's sons did sin after the flood. He still had his free will even after seeing the great flood. This is because the great flood looked like any other flood. It happened in a natural manner, and even Noah and his sons had no evidence that G-d actually made the flood. In fact, according to the Torah and the Jewish tradition, the Tower built in Genesis Chapter 11 verses 1-9, was made (among other reasons) to prevent the sky from falling as it had in the time of the flood. They considered the flood to be nothing more than a natural occurrence that could be prevented with the right technology. It is obvious that the world still had its purpose because Noah and his sons still retained their own free will. The world was created with precise laws of physics that seem to always follow a pattern in order to hide G-d's presence and give everyone free will. This is why G-d did not use any method of destroying the world. If G-d had used such methods, Noah and his sons would have lost their free will, and the purpose of the entire world would no longer exist. In a way, the flood method was used for Noah and his sons, and not for the rest of the world.
Granny Magda writes:
If it displeases him so much, why is he depicted in the Torah as having killed so many? He doesn't stop at the flood, after all. He gets through quite a body count.
Now you are asking a very good question. You are basically asking why G-d would destroy the evil in the world at all. Why did G-d not just let the evil continue, after all, the humans should have free will? To answer this question you must first realize that the evil in this world pains G-d tremendously. G-d has created this world with the sole purpose of giving pleasure to people who chose good. Imagine how G-d would feel if these people disobey G-d and chose to not earn the reward. This is contrary to G-d's purpose in this world, and G-d gets pained by seeing such things happen in the world. Furthermore, evil is actually self destructive to the sole. G-d reached a point and said "no more." G-d decided to not let the humans continue to harm themselves with the evil, and instead G-d took the soles back from these humans. It is also possible that their soles had been completely tarnished with the evil that G-d knew that there was no return. This is because according to Judaism, the evil that a person does impacts his sole and creates a stronger desire to do more evil. When a certain point of evil is reached, it may not be possible for true free will to take place because the evil is just to strong. I will discuss the rest of your post in a later post. Please do not respond until I have given you a complete response to your post. You have some good questions and I would like to answer all of them.
Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2008 11:15 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 57 of 68 (483727)
09-23-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Open MInd
09-23-2008 7:18 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
They could have all died out before the great flood.
There is no evidence that the peoples of Australia died out and were replaced later.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 7:18 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 58 of 68 (483728)
09-23-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Open MInd
09-23-2008 7:18 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
Also, remember that Noah had 100 years until the flood.
No proof of such totally hearsay.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Open MInd, posted 09-23-2008 7:18 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 59 of 68 (484036)
09-25-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Granny Magda
09-21-2008 11:15 PM


Re: The Reason For a Flood
Granny Magda writes:
I agree that those in evil surroundings will be more likely to be evil, but that still leaves free will. The very fact of free will, which you are so keen on, means that people had the freedom not to chose evil. The consequences might have been dire, but even so, they could have chosen. By simply them, including those unable to make their own choices, such as infants, God effectively removed their free will. Given that I do not see Noah's "warnings" as in any way convincing, or see how they could have been made known to everyone who lived, including pre-verbal children and s with mental disabilities, I don't see any free will at all. God sent an unconvincing warning an then killed everyone when it turned out to be a barmy way of sending a message.
Trulyfree will includes the option to chose what God doesn't like. All I see here is free will being trampled on.
I think you are saying that free will always exists no matter what a persons surroundings are, and you consider it wrong for G-d to kill people because it necessarily removes their free will. First of all, free will does not always exist. A good way of showing this is to bring a person to the top of a very tall building and ask him if he has the free will to jump off. On first glance one would say that he has the free will to do anything, and nothing can stand in his way. However, if one thinks about it a little more he or she may realize that no sane individual really has the ability to jump off that buildings roof. This free will just does not exist, even though it is technically a possibility. This illustration is only to make the point a little clearer. However, according to the Jewish tradition, it is possible to reach a point where the free will is skewed to the evil side. This can happen when a person continue to chose evil. Eventually, he has effectively removed his free will to chose good. Free will is not always around, and in certain situations a person will remove it from himself. Now what happens when a person dies? Is G-d removing his or her free will? The answer is that G-d gives a person an amount of time with which to earn reward through choosing good. After this point, G-d will take the person to another world in order to give that person the reward. Free will is not meant to be there forever. Free will only exists when it is serving a purpose. Similarly, if a person chooses evil so much so that his free will has been skewed toward the evil, it is the person that has removed his or her own free will. When G-d removes these people from the world, He is not trampling there free will but rather just removing evil puppets from the world. G-d is actually doing them a service by taking away their ability to continue what would only be evil from then on.
Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2008 11:15 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 60 of 68 (484041)
09-25-2008 9:14 PM


This is a "Why the Flood" themed topic, in the "Faith and Belief" forum
From message 1:
It would have been simpler if "God" had simply stated all animals except Noah's family and one pair of the unclean & 7 pairs of the clean will now die. Why go through the rigamarole of a global flood. If a person believes in let there be light then why not the above. If all that is meant in creation is magic let it be all.
The essence of this topic is why God thought the flood was needed. Message 1 is extremely clear about that.
This is a "WHY" topic. Regardless of the flood reality, in the context of this topic, it did happen.
Considerations of WHAT actually happened, HOW it happened, WHEN it happened, WHERE it happened, etc. are all off-topic.
Please follow these guidelines. If you see these guidelines after you post an off-topic message, go back and edit fix your message (maybe delete the content?).
Not having seen this moderation message is not a "get off free" excuse. Harsh administrative actions might happen to guideline violators.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: I've only "OFF-TOPIC" bannered some of the most recent messages. That does not mean that the ealier messages were any better.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024