My questions

[PaxThroughX]

First and foremost I will point out that I see nothing wrong in questioning my faith, for we must examine outselves.


I want real answers or else this makes everyone on this site look bad.

Why did G-d created the world and later flooded it?

Why did G-d tell King Saul to kill the Assyrians (correct me if i m wrong)

Why didn't G-d give us minds to be able to comprhend all his work? Because he is a jealousy G-d and doesnt want us to have such knowledge?

I have plenty of more, but I would like some scriptual back up. Scientific evidence is also welcomed greatly!

 

[Gath]

Why did G-d created the world and later flooded it?

There are numerous explanations within Christian teachings to explain this. Personally, I find the most compelling argument to be the idea that the flood is an allegorical story meant to represent baptism-the cleansing of sin through water. Using this explanation, God didn't literally flood the world.

However, taking a more literal standpoint, I'd look to the fact that God didn't destroy the world. Periodic cleansing can be good, even required, in some circumstances. God didn't destroy the world-he tried to make it a better place.

Assuming that God's omniscience works in such a way that he can see the future, the above explanation shows why he may have been willing to create the world even if it did require some cleansing. However, if one takes a more liberal definition of omniscience, one could claim that God doesn't know the future, merely all possible outcomes. This definition means that he created the world without knowing he would have to flood it.

Why did G-d tell King Saul to kill the Assyrians (correct me if i m wrong)

I don't know enough about this to offer any insight.

Why didn't G-d give us minds to be able to comprhend all his work? Because he is a jealousy G-d and doesnt want us to have such knowledge?

Well, claiming that it is impossible for humans to comprehend nature is a bit of a bold statement. Maybe our minds are strong enough, but we need to work towards the ultimate goal of understanding everything. It's not necessarily something that we can understand now, and we may need to develop our science further.

Alternatively, you could claim that humans just aren't ready to understand everything, for the same reason you don't teach second-graders calculus. Perhaps there's some kind of greater understanding one receives in the afterlife, and time spent on earth is a sort of spiritual childhood.

If you were to take a more cynical viewpoint, you could say that it is because God is jealous. He might not really be all-powerful. It's possible that he is not omnipotent-although he has enough power to tricking humans into thinking he is. In this interpretation, he would want to stop humans from understanding everything so that they don't see through the ruse.

I'm sure that a Christian will be able to offer far more satisfactory answers. Quite frankly, I don't think the above explanations are adequate. However, it should give you something to think about, at the least.

 

[ChristianT]

First and foremost I will point out that I see nothing wrong in questioning my faith, for we must examine outselves.

Amen. I prefer thinking Christians rather than "lamblike" Christians. Sure we're Jesus' sheep, but we're also to be salt, and light. Light under a dim cover doesn't do too well.

I want real answers or else this makes everyone on this site look bad.

Why did G-d created the world and later flooded it?

I'm not able to exactly explain what God's reasoning for that story was. If it really was history, I expect it could be of a plot of land which is under what may now be a sea, or other smaller body of water. If it was allegory, it was to show how God can take whomever he chooses, declare them holy or righteous, and cleanse [the created order] of its iniquity.

Why did G-d tell King Saul to kill the Assyrians (correct me if i m wrong)

I'm not sure about the Assyrians, but the Amalekites, a people called to be destroyed, were of a culture so vile and wicked that we'd probably have taken war with them too had we been neighbors. However, God had promised in the Exodus to have revenge on them because they treated Israel when it was defenseless with murder, violence, and contempt. Whether or not a holy war was really declared? I can't say one way or the other.

Why didn't G-d give us minds to be able to comprhend all his work? Because he is a jealousy G-d and doesnt want us to have such knowledge?

On the other hand, we have brains capable to comprehend enough of His works. We can observe His handiwork in the universe, brought on by science, visual, and relational experience in it. We can even hypothesize concepts such as the Trinity, the Ecclesial Bride, the Atonement, the Incarnation, the very reconnection of God and man in the future. It's quite amazing the things we can learn and expect from God for the future. Amazing grace, they say.

Also, God's jealousy only goes so far as being a deity. He isn't jealous of us, and the very emotion of jealousy is only an anthropomorphism. A metaphor of what idolatry's effect has on our God. He made us and was to be our God, so when we replace Him with our idols or no worship, we're pretty much spitting in His face.

I have plenty of more, but I would like some scriptual back up. Scientific evidence is also welcomed greatly!

Exodus 17:
'8 At Rephidim, Amalek[c] came and fought against Israel. 9 Moses said to Joshua, “Select some men for us and go fight against Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the hilltop with God’s staff in my hand.”

10 Joshua did as Moses had told him, and fought against Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11 While Moses held up his hand,[d] Israel prevailed, but whenever he put his hand[e] down, Amalek prevailed. 12 When Moses’ hands grew heavy, they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat down on it. Then Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other so that his hands remained steady until the sun went down. 13 So Joshua defeated Amalek and his army[f] with the sword.

14 The Lord then said to Moses, “Write this down on a scroll as a reminder and recite it to Joshua: I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek under heaven.”

15 And Moses built an altar and named it, “The Lord Is My Banner.”[g] 16 He said, “Indeed, my hand is lifted up toward[h] the Lord’s throne. The Lord will be at war with Amalek from generation to generation.”'

Exodus 20:
'5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God'

RE flood:
straight from wikipedia:

• The fact that a number of volcanic oceanic island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, yield evidence of the ocean floor having moved over volcanic hot spots. These islands have widely ranging ages (determined via both radiometric dating and relative erosion) that contradict the catastrophic tectonic hypothesis of rapid development and thus a similar age.
• Radiometric dating and sedimentation rates on the ocean floor likewise contradict the hypothesis that it all came into existence nearly contemporaneously.
• Catastrophic tectonics does not allow sufficient time for guyots to have their peak eroded away (leaving these seamounts' characteristic flat tops).
• Runaway subduction does not explain the kind of continental collision illustrated by that of the Indian and Eurasian Plates. (For further information see Orogeny.)

 

[PaxThroughX]

There are numerous explanations within Christian teachings to explain this. Personally, I find the most compelling argument to be the idea that the flood is an allegorical story meant to represent baptism-the cleansing of sin through water. Using this explanation, God didn't literally flood the world.

Eh, I don't think saying "not literal," is historically correct. However, I feel what your saying.

However, taking a more literal standpoint, I'd look to the fact that God didn't destroy the world. Periodic cleansing can be good, even required, in some circumstances. God didn't destroy the world-he tried to make it a better place.

Assuming that God's omniscience works in such a way that he can see the future, the above explanation shows why he may have been willing to create the world even if it did require some cleansing. However, if one takes a more liberal definition of omniscience, one could claim that God doesn't know the future, merely all possible outcomes. This definition means that he created the world without knowing he would have to flood it.

Still, could he have not flooded the world? If it was of cleansing, could he have not killed the infants and/or children atleast?

Well, claiming that it is impossible for humans to comprehend nature is a bit of a bold statement. Maybe our minds are strong enough, but we need to work towards the ultimate goal of understanding everything. It's not necessarily something that we can understand now, and we may need to develop our science further.

Alternatively, you could claim that humans just aren't ready to understand everything, for the same reason you don't teach second-graders calculus. Perhaps there's some kind of greater understanding one receives in the afterlife, and time spent on earth is a sort of spiritual childhood.

If you were to take a more cynical viewpoint, you could say that it is because God is jealous. He might not really be all-powerful. It's possible that he is not omnipotent-although he has enough power to tricking humans into thinking he is. In this interpretation, he would want to stop humans from understanding everything so that they don't see through the ruse.

I'm sure that a Christian will be able to offer far more satisfactory answers. Quite frankly, I don't think the above explanations are adequate. However, it should give you something to think about, at the least.

Define jealousy? Is that the same type of jealousy comparing a human to a immortal?

 

[PaxThroughX]

I'm not able to exactly explain what God's reasoning for that story was. If it really was history, I expect it could be of a plot of land which is under what may now be a sea, or other smaller body of water. If it was allegory, it was to show how God can take whomever he chooses, declare them holy or righteous, and cleanse [the created order] of its iniquity.

Oh, thats not good. If it was to show power, do you think a little more love could have been shown? Or is the relations different when speaking of G-d?

I'm not sure about the Assyrians, but the Amalekites, a people called to be destroyed, were of a culture so vile and wicked that we'd probably have taken war with them too had we been neighbors. However, God had promised in the Exodus to have revenge on them because they treated Israel when it was defenseless with murder, violence, and contempt. Whether or not a holy war was really declared? I can't say one way or the other.

If it was a holy war, it would make sense....

On the other hand, we have brains capable to comprehend enough of His works. We can observe His handiwork in the universe, brought on by science, visual, and relational experience in it. We can even hypothesize concepts such as the Trinity, the Ecclesial Bride, the Atonement, the Incarnation, the very reconnection of God and man in the future. It's quite amazing the things we can learn and expect from God for the future. Amazing grace, they say.

Also, God's jealousy only goes so far as being a deity. He isn't jealous of us, and the very emotion of jealousy is only an anthropomorphism. A metaphor of what idolatry's effect has on our God. He made us and was to be our God, so when we replace Him with our idols or no worship, we're pretty much spitting in His face.



Exodus 17:
'8 At Rephidim, Amalek[c] came and fought against Israel. 9 Moses said to Joshua, “Select some men for us and go fight against Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the hilltop with God’s staff in my hand.”

10 Joshua did as Moses had told him, and fought against Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11 While Moses held up his hand,[d] Israel prevailed, but whenever he put his hand[e] down, Amalek prevailed. 12 When Moses’ hands grew heavy, they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat down on it. Then Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other so that his hands remained steady until the sun went down. 13 So Joshua defeated Amalek and his army[f] with the sword.

14 The Lord then said to Moses, “Write this down on a scroll as a reminder and recite it to Joshua: I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek under heaven.”

15 And Moses built an altar and named it, “The Lord Is My Banner.”[g] 16 He said, “Indeed, my hand is lifted up toward[h] the Lord’s throne. The Lord will be at war with Amalek from generation to generation.”'

Exodus 20:
'5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God'

RE flood:
straight from wikipedia:

• The fact that a number of volcanic oceanic island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, yield evidence of the ocean floor having moved over volcanic hot spots. These islands have widely ranging ages (determined via both radiometric dating and relative erosion) that contradict the catastrophic tectonic hypothesis of rapid development and thus a similar age.
• Radiometric dating and sedimentation rates on the ocean floor likewise contradict the hypothesis that it all came into existence nearly contemporaneously.
• Catastrophic tectonics does not allow sufficient time for guyots to have their peak eroded away (leaving these seamounts' characteristic flat tops).
• Runaway subduction does not explain the kind of continental collision illustrated by that of the Indian and Eurasian Plates. (For further information see Orogeny.)

That can open a conversation up a bit. Should wikipedia not be trusted to be listed as a source?

 

[ChristianT]

Wikipedia is actually very good, and it's use of cited sources may also be used I you prefer.

 

[ChristianT]

Oh, thats not good. If it was to show power, do you think a little more love could have been shown? Or is the relations different when speaking of G-d?

I don't believe God didn't give anyone a warning beforehand, but in the same manner people have and will deny Jesus' offering of forgiveness, they ignored their chances at forgiveness as well.

If it was a holy war, it would make sense....

Exactly.

That can open a conversation up a bit. Should wikipedia not be trusted to be listed as a source?

As my last comment says, I think it could.

 

[PaxThroughX]

I don't believe God didn't give anyone a warning beforehand, but in the same manner people have and will deny Jesus' offering of forgiveness, they ignored their chances at forgiveness as well.


Exactly.


As my last comment says, I think it could.

Well going by other people's experience. They say Wikipedia can be changed or edited in someones favor. The only thing I see wrong with this is that i am sure a Wikipedia cop goes around checking these sources and can shut down the site as he fit.

 

[Girder of Loins]

The Flood in a literal sense:

Before Abraham, God did not have a covenant with any people-group. Therefore, His righteousness would have caused the Flood to overcome and "reset" the unrighteous world. Apparently, only Noah was righteous, so he was spared.

The Flood in a non-literal sense:

It is merely a story, similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Since they came from the same region, perhaps the Euphrates flooded or something. Writing wasn't "invented" until Abraham(ish). So that is a long time for oral history.

The "Holy Wars" of Historic Israel:

God's covenant resided with the Jews, not the Assyrians/Amalakites/et cetera. Therefore, His mercy did not extend to them. Therefore, these "Holy Wars" were a cleansing of the unrighteousness of the world. Thankfully, God's mercy is now extended to all, so we don't need to kill anyone anymore.

 

[Gath]

Still, could he have not flooded the world? If it was of cleansing, could he have not killed the infants and/or children atleast?

Well, that's why I prefer the allegorical explanation.

Not killing infants and children does leave the question of who would take care of them wide open though...they wouldn't exactly be able to fend for themselves. Additionally, it's plausible that God felt they were too corrupted already or that they would live a much better life in heaven. It's possible that God killing people isn't necessarily morally wrong in the same way that humans killing others is because, for one, he's not ending their existence, and two, he can guarantee they are getting the result they deserve.

Define jealousy? Is that the same type of jealousy comparing a human to a immortal?

Jealousy in the sense that God is embarrassed by his lack of omnipotence and pretends to be omnipotent to make himself feel better. It also provides him with a convenient way to prevent his creations from questioning him.

 

[Spikey4672]

Well just to throw my two cents in here
1. The flood, it really happend. It is documented in cultures from Mesoamerica, to the Middle East, to East Asia of a flooding near the beginning of the Earth. God flooded the world to purge it of the corruption and yeah it sucked for the people that died, but change is like that. When they say the old ways die they dont peacefully die in their sleep they go down kicking and screaming but that is the nature of sin, to not give up without a fight. And the sad part is that children, infants, and the elderly had to die but God did not murder them they were living in the world where conversion was not an option because the only righteous man in the world was Noah.
2. God ordered Saul to kill the Amalekites because had he not they would have corrupted the Israelites. Since God is omnipotent, he knows that had he spared any of them, they would integrate themselves into Israelite culture and defile it. Its the equivalent nowadays of your parents giving you that look when they see your "new best friend" with the facial piercings and the blue and purple hair.
3. Let me ask a question to answer a question, if you knew everything there was to know about God how could he be God? Would you not be on the same level as him? Also i like to think of obtaining this knowledge as a reward. If you remember in Genesis there were two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge and of good and evil (correct me if i am wrong because i have heard some say it was one and some say it was two sorry don't have my Bible handy). The tree of knowledge is waiting in Paradise for those who were reborn

Good luck and God bless