Why did Noah's descendents forsake God so quickly?

A glib, albeit accurate, response would be to point out that God, whilst having children, has no grandchildren. That is to say, all men are born sinners, in rebellion, God hating, blind.. and get to become (or not) children of God. Which applies to the children of those 8 as much as anyone else.Until such point as they were children of God (if becoming so), those children-of-8 would deny night followed day rather than bow down to the living God. It's not a rational thing - to be influenced by the sure knowledge of parents who witnessed God's action. Rather, it's a spiritual thing, influenced by the nature of man-as-he-is-born.That nature is sinful; God hating, God denying and no testimony of any parent is certain to change that.-As to why the plethora of different beliefs today? On the one hand it points to the ends that sinful man will go to to plaster over the knowledge he has that God exists (a knowledge he has, says God). Made in the image and likeness of God, men are infinitely creative and turn that creativity to the goal of producing (a myriad of) ways in which to suppress their knowledge of God. What material difference a false god, false gods or even no god at all?On the other hand, those different beliefs aren't really all that different in essence. One core thing they have in common is that mans destiny w.r.t. whatever the god in question happens to be, is in a mans own hands. And that all he need do is fulfill certain requirements the god has in order to achieve a positive position w.r.t. that god.Which leaves man free to carry on with the rest of his life as he wishes, his god safely compartimentalised away and making a something-less-than-an-absolute call on the mans life. Compare to Christianity, in which God issues a call into each and ever area and moment of his disciples existance. That's not something the non-child of God could begin to countenance, his evil-loving nature (says the Bible) shirking from the light that would be shone onto his evil deeds.Even as a child of God it's not always fun having that light shone into dark places Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Not all are unbelievers and it's those who believed, naturally, who were those utilised in the composition of the Bible. But what you say has some application - albeit to my case. There are many parts of the world were owning/distributing a Bible is a very dangerous practice and at other times, attempts have been made to eradicate it from the public realm altogether.Even if you believe the Bible untrue, it's arguments regarding men it calls unbelievers would lead you to conclude the existance of the multi-facetted god world we see around us today. That is to say, if untrue, it would be a fictional account of why things are the way they are - but a coherent account for all that.- No it doesn't. But it has a positive afterlife outcome which depends very much on how you live your life in this life. What actual matter whether a personal god or an impersonal force/energy at the root of that positive afterlife outcome?- Noting that...

quote:

---

Religiously speaking, the most important thing to do in life is believe in the gods and perform the proper sacrifices and rituals. This would avoid reprisals both from gods and fellow human beings and encourage gifts from the gods. Greek religion was this-world oriented; any postmortem benefits of religious beliefs and actions were only peripherally considered, if at all.

---

a casual search ..and bearing in mind my noting atheism to belong on the list of ways in which the truth of God is suppressed, we can describe these gods as an evolutionary stage on the way to atheism. What better way to deny having to give an account to God than to deny an afterlife in which that account will be given?- ...which, when you consider it for a moment, perfectly reflects the attributes of their creator, ie: man (were it that we were looking for evidence to support my position)- We wouldn't be dealing with just any old story. This story would involve the spiritually-driven hatred of things-God. Consider for example, the speed at which the Israelites dispensed with a knowledge of God having just been transported through a parted sea. They had barely shaken the sea-bottom sand from their sandals before embarking on a project involving a golden calf idol.(remember; if we're positing the flood true then we're also positing the biblically-described mechanisms of truth-suppression true. And arrive, quite readily, at an explanation for the multi-god universe we witness today.Beside, if God and if gods, there would be no actual facts to tie the story down w.r.t. the gods. Not in the same way that stories of travel to the New World could be tied down. I haven't the time now but I seem to recall anyway, that one can trace various gods through different cultures/eras, their names being changed along the way perhaps, but their evoution and transmorgification into 'other' gods being fairly evident.- In all the other faiths the creator would be man* and the god in question would be subject to man and so can be altered in any way and at any time by man. Biblical faith, assuming true, has God as it's creator and sustainer and has man subject to God.*This is not to say that a.n.other faith need be changed much/at all. The biblical view is that one person sits behind all false gods, to whit; satan. And if that persons ends are served by change in a god then change there shall be. And if ends served by no change in a god then no change there shall be.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It seems there was room for eternal bliss in some sectors. From that same site.

quote:

---

Elysium (also called Elysian Fields or Elysian Plain) was a paradise inhabited at first only by the very distinguished, but later by the good. Elysium first appears in Homer's Odyssey as the destination of Menelaus. It is located at the western ends of the earth and is characterized by gentle breezes and an easy life like that of the gods. Closely related to Elysium is Hesiod's Isles of the Blessed, mentioned in his Works and Days, which was located in the western ocean.

---

It is interesting to note that this paradise (inevitably) fits the bill suggested for unbiblical religion in general. A positive afterlife outcome depends upon what a man does in this life.- That's not quite how things are set up Dr.A. The OP questions how, given the flood and a surviving 8, we arrive at the current scenario. I'm merely pointing out the biblical narrative from the one assumed to the answer requested.I'm not attempting to prove the Bible is true - although some evidences (eg: unbiblical gods/forces invariably demand works for a positive afterlife outcome - where one is available) support the biblical case.- The children of Noah would have been born unbelievers and would have - until such time as they became believers (if at all) denied and perverted any truth of God to which they were exposed. Such is the nature of unbelievers. The Christians you speak of would be believers.Which means you're comparing the actions of apples (for whom no evidence of God is enough) and pears (who, having faith, have all the evidence for God that they need).

I might be able to deal with your points by taking a brief look at what faith is - as evidenced in both this case and in the Bible in general.We might agree that the reason Noah & Co. had 'faith' was because God manifested himself to them (or because his actions were made manifestly his, by him). That is to say, the faith in question isn't a blind, unevidenced faith. Rather, it's belief based on evidence (and a supremely rational position to occupy). A key point to note then, is that a persons faith (of this kind) depends on one requirement being met, to whit: God acts. If God doesn't act so as to ensure someone believes in him then someone won't believe in him. Which is to say: hearing about God in secondhand fashion doesn't produce faith, encountering God does.So when we look at the failure of the 'Abrahamic God' to appear other than in the middle east we can say that that failure is due (primarily) to a failure on God's part to manifest himself to people other than in the middle east (for whatever reasons he might have). Which is to repeat: faith cannot be transmitted by word of mouth - only stories can be.And if a mere story isn't transmitted from an epicentre unto all corners of the globe then what of it? Especially when the story concerns a God whom people have replaced with a god they feel to be real-er?

When Jesus said to Thomas

quote:

---

Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

---

.. he was illustrating the nature of the self same God-sourced faith that convinced Noah of Gods' existance. That is to say; God is not restricted to manifesting himself empirically (ie: "seen") in order that he be made manifest to someone. Whether through empirical manifestation or no, faith is unaltered: the person believes because God acted - whether that person is Noah or me.- Firstly, the point I was making had to do with a reason why a mere story about God can be expected not make it to/take hold as faith in the far flung corners of the world. Faith following from an act of God and not by the recounting of stories explains that much.Not that distance matters. A God-acted-upon parent telling a not-yet-God-acted-upon child about God would produce the same kind of belief in the child then as it does now - a cultural belief. Which is not much of a belief at all - as countless atheists brought up with cultural Christianity will tell you. Cultural beliefs are easily dispensed with.As an aside, I'm curious about evidence of God you suppose a post-flood child to have available to it - aside from her parents testimony I mean?- I'm merely giving the biblical position on faith - I'm not trying to prove that God acted.For the sake of discussion we are supposing that God action produced Noahs faith. We immediately have a feasible explaination as to why faith in God could disappear - whether quickly or slowly. Simply: God didn't act so faith disappearedIt's not a complex idea once you assign the source of faith to God.Even a believer relies on God's continuing action to sustain his faith. If God 'withdraws' the persons faith wavers, if God comes close, the person can move mountains.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The same thing that's apparently preventing you and others on this site from believing: God hasn't acted empirically/unempirically in your/their case so as to enable you/them to believe.What's special about me? Nothing much as it happens - other than my having met the criteria God has for revealing his existance to someone (via empirical means or unempirical). I say "nothing special" because everyone has the potential to meet this criteria (for God wants that all men be saved).The main point: faith arises from direct act of God. Faith arising by transmission of stories about God is cultural/blind.- ..and as distinct and separate from God-source faith as it is possible for a belief to be .. let us retain in our thoughts so as not to conflate the two ideas. Lets's call belief1 belief of the God sourced variety and belief2 as any other sort of belief- And what is the essential difference between a cultural Christian and an atheist w.r.t. God if not ...absolutely nothing?The cultural Christian is an unbeliever who places his trust in a false god that happens to be modelled on God (much like the muslim/jew worships a false god modelled on God). In his worshipping of an idol, he maintains himself in a state of rejection with respect to God. The atheist worships a different idol in his maintaining a similar rejection of God: he believes in naturalism, science, humanism and looks to these in order to answer questions that demand answering such as "who am I" and "where do I go when I die". The cultural Christian's false god gives him answers, as does the atheists false god.- I'm not sure what your first sentence means. People believe in God because they witness God acting and..??But to deal with your point. A person believing something because they are told about it, isn't the same as someone believing because they witnessed it themselves. The faith of the former is based on trusting the witness, the faith of the latter based on direct evidence.- By the time a child was conceived, born and raised to the point of wondering about such things, such evidence would have disappeared under new growth/will have rotted away. Having no particular reason to question the testimony of their parents I'd see cultural believers in the making post-Noah, with all the sticking power that cultural anything has.I look to the rapid evaporation of cultural Christianity in Ireland between the Pope's visit (involving huge crowds) in 1979 and the arrival of the Celtic Tiger economy in the mid-90's. In those days people looked curiously at you if you didn't go to church on a Sunday, now they look at you curiously if you do.- I'm merely applying a biblical notion to this particular case: faith arises from action on Gods part. And so, if unbelief is manifest then the biblical notion of faith tells us that God isn't acting. This is not to say that nobody believed post-flood, for clearly some did.Which more or less reflects the situations at all times: most people don't believe and some people do.Perhaps it would be helpful if I was to say that (biblically) definitionally, faith = action of God on a person. So whenever you see unbelief/lack of faith in the Bible you know, by definition, that this is because God isn't acting.