Do you believe in God?

[esme]

I do not choose to believe God wiped out every little thing because he was having a hissy fit. I think he realised he'd made a a fatal mistake trusting humanity to use the brain he gave them in the way he'd intended and decided to start again!!

Honestly I think in those days as someone on here said people did not have scientific knowledge to make informed decisions about things so came up with idea's that made sense to them at the time. We are all bounded by known concepts of what we think we know at the time!!

Pardon ?

 

As far as I'm aware the popular view amongst theists is that god doesn't make mistakes.

 

Omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient with the last one being the key point here, omniscient means knowing everything, including what is going to happen, despite "free will", for the entirety of existence.

 

God would have known from the instant of creation that humanity would use it's brain in a way other than intended and therefore the flood was pre ordained and could not be avoided.

 

But that also begs the question of why bring a flood, I mean it's not like the people could do anything to avoid it as it was known it would be necessary from the instant of creation, so from the instant of creation those people were going to drown and die a horrible death.

 

Oh sorry I was forgetting ineffable, god created everything and then sent a flood to wipe out a sizeable chunk of it for reasons that can only be understood by god.

 

Seems a lot of effort, why bother creating all those people in the first place, why not just create noah and family and give them the memories of a biblical flood, that would be a lot easier and fewer people would suffer and die.

[Snowbird]

Sorry, I didn't realise that was your position, my apologies.

 

I disagree that it means that it lends credance to the Biblical account though.

 

Firstly it wasn't a world wide flood so the moral of the Bible story is somewhat irrelevant.

 

Secondly if you acknowledge it is based on an earlier story isn't it also true that other Biblical episodes could also be 'borrowed'? If this is the case how do you seperate what you are told in the Bible from what could easily be stylized or fictional stories?

 

How, in other words, does the believer distinguish between the fact and the fiction of the Bible?

 

I'm not taking the Mic btw, I'm genuinely interested.

It may well have seemed like the whole world had gone, to the people who experienced the aftermath of the flood don't you think? Even then men were so conviced of their own importance that it seems likely he would have to find someone to blame for his misfortune. After all God had given him a perfect world to live in , designed just for his convienience so it could not just go belly up unless someone, somewhere had done something really bad to deserve it!

Is there a likelihood that the writers of the bible had already read fictionalised stories of the flood? I don't know. Its possible they wanted to put their own slant on it, or its possible more than one person could have had similar thoughts about it.

How does a believer distinguish truth from fiction-- ah! To start with not a lot do! Many are fed bible stories all their lives and accept it without question because everyone else around them believes it and wiser men than they at some synodd or other decided they had to believe it or be condemned to the fiery pit!

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time. What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution. Yet if you look in the old testament you are faced with a whole different kettle of fish.

A God who would punish innocent children for the sin of their fathers, who turned people to salt for being curious, who invoked war and divided families by showing favouritism to one over another of his so called children! That doesn't sound very divine to me!

[Snowbird]

So how many people did God murder when he decided to start again? Also I thought God was omnipotent, so surely he could have foreseen what happened and made us humans in such a way that he didn't have to murder every last one of us bar two.

 

How many? - like you said all bar two--- If you believe what the bible says--.and according to Genesis-- he did make man perfect and in his own image etc etc---just like we have kids in ours in the vain hope they'll turn out the way we want them to! To do what you suggest he would have had to make aotomatons not human beings!

[Snowbird]

Pardon ?

 

As far as I'm aware the popular view amongst theists is that god doesn't make mistakes.

 

Omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient with the last one being the key point here, omniscient means knowing everything, including what is going to happen, despite "free will", for the entirety of existence.

 

God would have known from the instant of creation that humanity would use it's brain in a way other than intended and therefore the flood was pre ordained and could not be avoided.

 

But that also begs the question of why bring a flood, I mean it's not like the people could do anything to avoid it as it was known it would be necessary from the instant of creation, so from the instant of creation those people were going to drown and die a horrible death.

 

Oh sorry I was forgetting ineffable, god created everything and then sent a flood to wipe out a sizeable chunk of it for reasons that can only be understood by god.

 

Seems a lot of effort, why bother creating all those people in the first place, why not just create noah and family and give them the memories of a biblical flood, that would be a lot easier and fewer people would suffer and die.

 

You've answered your own question! God is greater than us and would not have done these things- ergo it didn't happen like that!!

[MrSmith]

Pardon ?

 

As far as I'm aware the popular view amongst theists is that god doesn't make mistakes.

 

Omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient with the last one being the key point here, omniscient means knowing everything, including what is going to happen, despite "free will", for the entirety of existence.

 

God would have known from the instant of creation that humanity would use it's brain in a way other than intended and therefore the flood was pre ordained and could not be avoided.

 

But that also begs the question of why bring a flood, I mean it's not like the people could do anything to avoid it as it was known it would be necessary from the instant of creation, so from the instant of creation those people were going to drown and die a horrible death.

 

Oh sorry I was forgetting ineffable, god created everything and then sent a flood to wipe out a sizeable chunk of it for reasons that can only be understood by god.

 

Seems a lot of effort, why bother creating all those people in the first place, why not just create noah and family and give them the memories of a biblical flood, that would be a lot easier and fewer people would suffer and die.

 

Because there wouldn’t have been much entertainment value in it for God.

[JFKvsNixon]

How many? - like you said all bar two--- If you believe what the bible says--.and according to Genesis-- he did make man perfect and in his own image etc etc---just like we have kids in ours in the vain hope they'll turn out the way we want them to! To do what you suggest he would have had to make aotomatons not human beings!

 

So are you saying that God isn't all powerful, and he couldn't foresee what would happen to us humans? Also what would you think of a parent that murdered his children all because he didn't like the way they turned out?

[PaliRichard]

It may well have seemed like the whole world had gone, to the people who experienced the aftermath of the flood don't you think? Even then men were so conviced of their own importance that it seems likely he would have to find someone to blame for his misfortune. After all God had given him a perfect world to live in , designed just for his convienience so it could not just go belly up unless someone, somewhere had done something really bad to deserve it!

Is there a likelihood that the writers of the bible had already read fictionalised stories of the flood? I don't know. Its possible they wanted to put their own slant on it, or its possible more than one person could have had similar thoughts about it.

How does a believer distinguish truth from fiction-- ah! To start with not a lot do! Many are fed bible stories all their lives and accept it without question because everyone else around them believes it and wiser men than they at some synodd or other decided they had to believe it or be condemned to the fiery pit!

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time. What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution. Yet if you look in the old testament you are faced with a whole different kettle of fish.

A God who would punish innocent children for the sin of their fathers, who turned people to salt for being curious, who invoked war and divided families by showing favouritism to one over another of his so called children! That doesn't sound very divine to me!

 

But the flood was in the Old Testament, you yourself said 'I think he realised he'd made a a fatal mistake trusting humanity to use the brain he gave them in the way he'd intended and decided to start again!!', so you clearly believe in the flood story, why that and not the other parts of the old testament?

 

I don't like to use this term, it's usually the reserve of atheists who are obsessed with their own superiority over religion, but you really do seem to 'Cherry Pick' what you want from the Bible.

 

Do you think Jesus was God then? I'm trying to establish your position because you're not making yourself very clear.

 

I'm also not sure about you saying 'That doesn't sound very divine to me', why? Divinity isn't a prerequisite for a certain set of moral principles, it merely means Godlike, or trancendental, so why couldn't such a being do what they choose? The Bible certainly suggests that God does what he pleases wether it is harmful or not to his creation.

 

So let me rephrase my question in order to get a clearer answer.

 

Specifically which parts of the Bible do you accept and why do you accept them?

 

It seems to me like you accept the parts which fit in with your own moral framework of the world, isn't that just man creating God in his own image?

 

I will repeat I'm not taking the mic, I'm genuinely interested but you really do seem to be cherry picking, and I'm more than a little confused

[Chris_Sleeps]

Maybe its something to do with this.

You explain it to me. I've read a lot of Tudor history, and it rarely even features Ireland. Henry VIII was too busy killing his wives and fighting with France to push any real troubles on Ireland. It was the Stuarts that started the "troubles" in Ulster.

[Ryedo40]

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time.

 

But nobody wrote about him at the time. Everything that was written about him was written decades - and hundreds of years after his claimed existence.

 

What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution.

 

Nobody really knows what he said because a great deal of it has been invented. Take "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" story as an example. It was basically a nice sounding tale that was added to the bible during the 5th century. The bible is brimming with similar additions and interpolations. It was also put together by people with agendas and personal biases; some of which were fashioned against Jews and those who don't believe.

 

It's simply not a book that can be trusted. That aside, and according to the tales attributed to him, he hardly turned away from violence and retribution. Not only did he take a whip to people in the temple, he also threatened people with retribution for not wanting to hear his words. I won't even mention what he did to that poor fig tree...

 

And if you take the Infancy Gospel of Thomas into account, you've got Jesus killing two children and an adult - and whole new bunch of crazy miracles that are just as unbelievable as the miracles that were put in the Bible.

 

[PaliRichard]

Snowbird

 

Sorry, I didn't address all of your points.

 

It may well have seemed like the whole world had gone, to the people who experienced the aftermath of the flood don't you think?[/Quote]

 

Yes, but the Bible tells us it was the whole world, if as you say here

Even then men were so conviced of their own importance that it seems likely he would have to find someone to blame for his misfortune. After all God had given him a perfect world to live in , designed just for his convienience so it could not just go belly up unless someone, somewhere had done something really bad to deserve it![/Quote]

 

There seems to be a reasoning for God to destroy the world, but the evidence doesn't say the whole world was destroyed. We're going in circles a bit here. Did God flood the world to punish man or not? If not why are you suggesting he did, if he did where is the evidence for a worldwide flood?

 

Is there a likelihood that the writers of the bible had already read fictionalised stories of the flood? I don't know. Its possible they wanted to put their own slant on it, or its possible more than one person could have had similar thoughts about it.[/Quote]

 

It seems likely. I also agree with you about them putting their own slant on it.

 

How does a believer distinguish truth from fiction-- ah! To start with not a lot do! Many are fed bible stories all their lives and accept it without question because everyone else around them believes it and wiser men than they at some synodd or other decided they had to believe it or be condemned to the fiery pit![/Quote]

 

A reasonable point, and one that would apply to all systems.

 

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time. What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution.[/Quote]

 

Indeed he did (or we are told he did), many people throughout history have displayed similar attributes, the difference been they weren't applied with the divinity label for it.

 

Yet if you look in the old testament you are faced with a whole different kettle of fish.

A God who would punish innocent children for the sin of their fathers, who turned people to salt for being curious, who invoked war and divided families by showing favouritism to one over another of his so called children! That doesn't sound very divine to me!

 

See my above post.