Taking questions on the Creation.

[AV1611VET]

Well, gramps gained a story he could tell when the kiddies were gathered round the fire. Nobody believed it of course, except the kiddies, who didn't yet appreciate what a liar gramps was, and cousin Jake, of course, who was always rather slow.

Don't bet on it.

Shem lived long enough to see Abraham's children.

That provided eyewitness testimony from one who had been through it --- right up to the time of the patriarchs.

 

[Gracchus]

Why did God destroy his creation by flooding it instead of just snapping his fingers to do it? And why did he decide to save parts of that creation by having Noah take it on the ark instead of just deciding that those bits were to be saved? Why go to all the effort of an ark, all that water, getting animals from all over the world, poor Noah's effort to build the ark etc when God could have accomplished it all for much less effort and time by just snapping his fingers? What was gained?

The salvation of many.


Had God snapped His fingers, as you suggested, then many more would have wound up in Hell.

So, God, being omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient, could have poofed into existence a world where no one would go to hell, chose to create one where people would have to go to hell if they don't believe ridiculous nonsense? Where the touchstone of his favor is how willing you are to desecrate your rational mind with cognitive dissonance?

I can imagine, just as the thief on the cross next to Jesus did, that many cried out to God for salvation as they were drowning.

It would appear that nothing is beyond your imagination.

As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

The saying, of course is patently untrue. As a matter of fact I have known several men who became atheists because of what they witnessed from foxholes.

But that's all right. I think we understand. At some point in your life, when your reason was challenged by fear, and fear won, you walled off your reason, with you and your fear on one side and god, truth,and reason on the other. It's a pity. You hold as the inerrant word of god a book authorized by an English king, and edited for political reasons. Your interpretation of that book is absurd. I doubt anyone shares your views, but you have to be the only person on the planet who gets it right.

Otherwise, you're all alone, and the dark is closing in, your god a bundle of printed pages describing a malicious, not-too-bright deity, who looks remarkably like you.

 

[Tiberius]

The salvation of many.

Had God snapped His fingers, as you suggested, then many more would have wound up in Hell.

I can imagine, just as the thief on the cross next to Jesus did, that many cried out to God for salvation as they were drowning.

As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

First of all, your claim that there are no atheists in foxholes is demonstratably false. There is a group of them here, and a monument to them here.

Now, on to your claim that God destroying the world via flood gained the salvation of ts in foxholes is demonstratably false. There is a group of them here, and a monument to them here.

Now, to your claim that some people received salvation when God destroying the world in a flood when they wouldn't have been so lucky if God had just snapped his fingers...

Couldn't God have given them salvation anyway? After all, he would have known who would have prayed for salvation, even if they didn't. Knowing things that would happen even if you change things so they never happen may be logically impossible, but you have agreed that God can do the logically impossible.

Is there any reason why God couldn't have done this?

 

[CoderHead]

The salvation of many.

Had God snapped His fingers, as you suggested, then many more would have wound up in Hell.

Are we all forgetting here that God destroyed everything and everyone on the planet specifically because they were too wicked to be saved? What makes you think a single one of them went to Heaven? What scripture backs up that view? Or is it just your unfounded postulation that, because "there are no atheists in foxholes," most, if not all, of the people being destroyed cried out for forgiveness and received it?

This conversation has taken a turn for the mentally-deficient. You're just injecting your own personal interpretation that many of your fellow Christians don't share and pretty much every agnostic/atheist cannot help but facepalm.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are we all forgetting here that God destroyed everything and everyone on the planet specifically because they were too wicked to be saved?

There is no such thing as being 'too wicked to be saved.'

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

 

[Tiberius]

I hope you aren't avoiding answering my points, AV...

 

[atomweaver]

The salvation of many.

Had God snapped His fingers, as you suggested, then many more would have wound up in Hell.

I can imagine, just as the thief on the cross next to Jesus did, that many cried out to God for salvation as they were drowning.

As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

If true, then there are no Christians in hospitals.

 

[CoderHead]

There is no such thing as being 'too wicked to be saved.'

Then why didn't God send Jesus instead of the flood? If He wanted to save them, He shouldn't have destroyed them. Instead, provide a means for their redemption.

Can't wait to hear your response.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Then why didn't God send Jesus instead of the flood? If He wanted to save them, He shouldn't have destroyed them. Instead, provide a means for their redemption.

Can't wait to hear your response.

I can wait... especially since it'll probably be something cryptic and meaningless like "The time wasn't right," or "The prophecies had not yet been written..."

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why didn't God send Jesus instead of the flood? If He wanted to save them, He shouldn't have destroyed them. Instead, provide a means for their redemption.

Can't wait to hear your response.

Are we on the same page here?

I'm talking about getting spiritually saved.

Even though they drowned, they cried out for salvation.

I thought I made that clear with the thief on the cross and the 'no atheists in foxholes' examples.

According to the book of Galatians (I believe it is), there comes a time when a person reaches what we would call the "point of no return".

A time when they're definitely going to die.

A point where they go too far, and now judgment is assured and irreversible.

Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

The Assyrian Empire came w/i 40 days of reaching that point, but they repented at the preaching of Jonah and were spared.

King Hezekiah reached that point, but he was given 15 extra years tacked on due to his humble repentance.

(Incidentally, he should not have done that, and should have died when he was first appointed; as 12 years later, he fathered the most evil king Israel ever had --- King Manasseh.)

In any event, I'm talking about what's called 'deathbed conversions' in Noah's time.

 

[CoderHead]

Are we on the same page here?

No.

Even though they drowned, they cried out for salvation.

And it says that...where, exactly? You have absolutely no backing for a "God provided them all salvation because they repented as they died" argument. He simply let them all drown and go to Hell, as far as you know.

I thought I made that clear with the thief on the cross and the 'no atheists in foxholes' examples.

Except that your "no atheists in foxholes" is fallacious and disrespectful to all of the atheists who died defending your freedom to make accusations like that. So, no, you didn't.

In any event, I'm talking about what's called 'deathbed conversions' in Noah's time.

And I'm talking about you making things up to fit your personal viewpoint. If God wanted them all to be spiritually saved, He could have provided a means for that salvation instead of wiping out the Earth and everything on it. For instance, Jesus - if that whole blood sacrifice thing makes any sense to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

And it says that...where, exactly? You have absolutely no backing for a "God provided them all salvation because they repented as they died" argument. He simply let them all drown and go to Hell, as far as you know.

Except that your "no atheists in foxholes" is fallacious and disrespectful to all of the atheists who died defending your freedom to make accusations like that. So, no, you didn't.

And I'm talking about you making things up to fit your personal viewpoint. If God wanted them all to be spiritually saved, He could have provided a means for that salvation instead of wiping out the Earth and everything on it. For instance, Jesus - if that whole blood sacrifice thing makes any sense to you.

Now I have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps someone else can answer this?

He seems to be getting soteriology mixed up with technical rescue.

 

[atomweaver]

Are we on the same page here?

I'm talking about getting spiritually saved.

Even though they drowned, they cried out for salvation.

What strange notions you have. If all you need to do to achieve salvation, is be scared into it in the instant before death, it would seem that Jesus is exceedingly unnecessary.

 

[CoderHead]

Now I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the complete destruction of everything on Earth, save breeding pairs and eight people who found favor in God's eyes. You state that optimally God wanted all of the people He destroyed to be in Heaven. You also state that the people who died in the flood cried out in repentance and were saved at the last minute. I say you're making it all up and that God didn't need to wipe the slate clean and start over if what He wanted was the salvation of these people's souls. Perhaps He should have done the burning bush thing sooner, or sent Jesus, or defeated Satan, just for a few ideas. The story of the flood doesn't make sense because it makes God look completely incompetent. It's a bad story.

Perhaps someone else can answer this?

Perhaps someone else could.

 

[jpcedotal]

So would you say that God is unable to go back on His word?

I think it is a question of "would He", not "can He".

God is constant and never changes.

 

[jpcedotal]

Thank you.

Why did God destroy his creation by flooding it instead of just snapping his fingers to do it? And why did he decide to save parts of that creation by having Noah take it on the ark instead of just deciding that those bits were to be saved? Why go to all the effort of an ark, all that water, getting animals from all over the world, poor Noah's effort to build the ark etc when God could have accomplished it all for much less effort and time by just snapping his fingers? What was gained?

So man would remember it.....which we have...even the those who do not worship Him. Sure they might deny it, but all know what is meant when "The Flood" is discussed.

 

[CoderHead]

So man would remember it.....which we have...even the those who do not worship Him. Sure they might deny it, but all know what is meant when "The Flood" is discussed.

We all remember how the elephant got its long trunk, too. But we call that a "fable." Any chance this one is too?

 

[jpcedotal]

We all remember how the elephant got its long trunk, too. But we call that a "fable." Any chance this one is too?

I also heard a story about how giraffes got their long necks, so you take fable as fact...even science....too, right? Now where did I put that picture of the short neck giraffe...oh wait, I can just get my 4 year old to draw one....that work for you?

 

[CoderHead]

I also heard a story about how giraffes got their long necks, so you take fable as fact...even science....too, right?

I'm not the one spouting the inerrant, literal truth of a talking serpent and a global flood. At least I can acknowledge that the elephant and giraffe stories are just cute anecdotes to entertain Kindergartners.

Scientific theories don't rely on suspension of reason for acceptance.

 

[jpcedotal]

I'm not the one spouting the inerrant, literal truth of a talking serpent and a global flood. At least I can acknowledge that the elephant and giraffe stories are just cute anecdotes to entertain Kindergartners.

Scientific theories don't rely on suspension of reason for acceptance.

No science is involved, just philosophy.