Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 07-01-2002, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
Or, how about a scientist doing a laboratory experiment with particular creatures, and finding that for the purposes of his experiment, only 2 out of 100 have not been "contaminated" beyond "redemption", and that those 98 have a contagious disease which would infect the other two if they were not destroyed (we are assuming that these creatures cannot exist outside of their laboratory environment [which parallels the Earth]). Not a perfect analogy, but it's just as good, and actually better, than the one you propose, and shows that the Flood does not need to imply any kind of "tantrum" on God's part.

In Christ,

Douglas

I suppose I should be flattered that you would equate an experimental scientist with God. Unfortunately, most of the scientists I know are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and take great pains not to let such things happen if they can help it because it's monumentally inefficient and wasteful. Any scientist who devised an experiment that would require him to destroy nearly all of his breeding stock, all of his equipment, and trash the entire lab, then started all over again, only to let the exact same thing happen all over again, would be in quite a bit of trouble with his superiors. Especially if he knew it was going to happen even before starting the experiment. And blaming the whole mess on the experimental creatures wouldn't help his credibility a heck of a lot.

Of course, God has no superiors, and we, being the creatures in the petri dish, are not deemed fit to judge the actions of our creator. So apparently the analogy fails on multiple levels.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 07:26 AM

Oolon,

Why should I? You've done a splendid job. God never said that He intended to "do away with sin", but just with the very wicked humanity (and concommitantly [I think I'm using, and spelling, this word correctly], all living creatures "in whom was the breath of life), obviously excepting those on the Ark. If He had intended to completely do away with sin, He'd have had to wipe EVERYTHING out (all living things) - but His purpose in redeeming sinful man had not yet been fulfilled, since Jesus had not yet been born, and so could not have been killed and thus offer His life as a sacrifice for sin, if sin had been completely done away with at that time.

In Christ,

Douglas

Tabula_rasa · 07-01-2002, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B:

Seriously, though: if god could create the whole lot from scratch in just six days, wouldn't it have been simpler to have wiped everything out and started again, using a slightly amended blue-print this time?

Sorry for butting into the conversation. Actually, I have it from a very good source of information that god *does* recreate the universe every six days. Depending on your god of worship, this occurs every Tues, Thur, or Sat. I personally believe in Next Saturdayism, but there are proponents of Last Thursdayism. <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~aexia/colt/" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~aexia/colt/</a>

Tabula_rasa

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 07:31 AM

MrDarwin,

You neglect or forget two important "ingredients" in God's "experiment" - love, and free will. God granted humans free will, but loved them enough to want to redeem them from their sins. Mankind had apparently become so wicked by the time of Noah that God, in His omniscience, knew it was necessary to "start over", lest the world become too wicked for His purpose to be accomplished, or something like this. But there will come a day when He will put an end to rebellion, at Jesus' Second Coming (and particularly at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ, after Satan is loosed from his prison, and is defeated). And there will come a day when there will be "new heavens and a new Earth", in which there is no taint of sin or corruption. But God's purposes in Jesus and the Church had to be (have yet to be) fulfilled first.

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 07:37 AM

Stephen,

Quote:

I asked the question because it's clear that god got pretty fed up with the way things were turning out and decided to start again.

Yes, but it wasn't something He hadn't foreseen even before creating Adam and Eve.

Quote:

But in your opinion, do you think things are not as bad in the world today as they were in the days before the Flood? I mean, how BAD were they?

I have no real way of comparing, but the Bible indicates that "as it was in the days of Noah", so would it be, generally, in the "Last Days", and I'm practically certain we are in the very last of the "Last Days" right now. So, I'd say things are very, very BAD in the world, morally speaking.

Quote:

And if they are now as bad as they were then - or worse - does this suggest that god wasted his time organising the Flood and getting all those animals on board the Ark.

Not at all. His purposes had not yet been accomplished in Jesus or the Church at the time of Noah, so a bit of "pruning" doesn't mean it was in vain, even if the weeds crop back up.

Quote:

Or does it mean that any day now we can expect another Flood?

No - remember what the rainbow signifies, according to the Bible?

Quote:

Should we be looking out for someone building a very large boat in his back yard?
Hey. You're not, are you?

Define "large".

Quote:

Seriously, though: if god could create the whole lot from scratch in just six days, wouldn't it have been simpler to have wiped everything out and started again, using a slightly amended blue-print this time?

No, because then He could not have provided redemption for all those who had hoped in His redemption prior - Jesus had not yet come and offered His life as a sacrifice, as one "born of a woman".

In Christ,

Douglas

MrDarwin · 07-01-2002, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
Mankind had apparently become so wicked by the time of Noah that God, in His omniscience, knew it was necessary to "start over", lest the world become too wicked for His purpose to be accomplished, or something like this.

Are you suggesting that there was ever a possibility, however remote, of God's purpose not being accomplished?

Or are you saying that, past a certain point, God would be powerless to do anything about it?

Oolon Colluphid · 07-01-2002, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
Oolon,

Why should I? You've done a splendid job. God never said that He intended to "do away with sin", but just with the very wicked humanity (and concommitantly [I think I'm using, and spelling, this word correctly], all living creatures "in whom was the breath of life), obviously excepting those on the Ark. If He had intended to completely do away with sin, He'd have had to wipe EVERYTHING out (all living things) - but His purpose in redeeming sinful man had not yet been fulfilled, since Jesus had not yet been born, and so could not have been killed and thus offer His life as a sacrifice for sin, if sin had been completely done away with at that time.

He didn�t want to redeem mankind just yet, so, rather than bide his time and put up with man�s sinning for a mere few thousand years till Jesus got born (an eyeblink to him, yeah? -- and he did know it�d carry on afterwards, yeah?), he was cross enough about it to drown everyone. Did he, as god, not have any control over when Jesus would turn up? Remind me again of god�s definition of �love�...?

And anyway Douglas, that whooshing noise just then was the point going past you. Let�s try again. I�m taking two lines of your reasoning and seeing if they fit together into a coherent whole.

1. Poor designs are caused by the fall.

2. God, being omniscient, knows they are poor designs.

3. He gets the chance to start over.

4. And blows it by letting crap designs through after all.

Well okay, if you say so...

Oolon

Douglas J. Bender · 07-01-2002, 07:59 AM

MrDarwin,

Quote:

Are you suggesting that there was ever a possibility, however remote, of God's purpose not being accomplished?

No. No more than saying, "If God hadn't seen to it that Jesus survived being born, God's purpose in Jesus' life would not have been accomplished".

Quote:

Or are you saying that, past a certain point, God would be powerless to do anything about it?

See my above comment. But, I probably should have added what the New Testament says about the events of the Old Testament (probably paraphrased): "The things that happened to them happened for our admonishment/education (or whatever word is used in the Bible)".

In Christ,

Douglas

KeithHarwood · 07-01-2002, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
MrDarwin,

Or, how about a scientist doing a laboratory experiment with particular creatures, and finding that for the purposes of his experiment, only 2 out of 100 have not been "contaminated" beyond "redemption", and that those 98 have a contagious disease which would infect the other two if they were not destroyed (we are assuming that these creatures cannot exist outside of their laboratory environment [which parallels the Earth]). Not a perfect analogy, but it's just as good, and actually better, than the one you propose, and shows that the Flood does not need to imply any kind of "tantrum" on God's part.

In Christ,

Douglas

But, hang on there Roy, the only reason you do experiments is because you don't know how they'll turn out. If you do know, you don't bother doing the experiment, you're not going to learn anything. So, this experimenter already know the results, he is omniscient after all, but he goes ahead anyway, stuffs it up and throws the lot away. Looks like a spotty kid playing at being a scientist and getting bored with it.

Tertulian · 07-02-2002, 09:23 PM

Quote:

While it isn't clear simply from Genesis 1-6 whether He knew this, the Bible is clear that God has known all things "from the beginning". Thus, He knew, when He created Adam and Eve, that the humans would "turn out so badly that" God "would later create this horrendous Flood and wipe out everything and everybody except Noah and his immediate family" (plus 2 of every kind of animal, and 7 of particular types).

The answer to my question may seem obvious to some but...
If your god knew 'all things from the beginning', then he knew that Adam and Eve would sin, right?
So why am I and the rest of humanity held accountable for the 'original sin'? Why was he kicked out the garden if your god already knew Adam would sin?
It seems like your god is a saddistic god.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2002, 07:26 AM	#12
Douglas J. Bender Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Elkhart, Indiana (USA) Posts: 460	Oolon, Why should I? You've done a splendid job. God never said that He intended to "do away with sin", but just with the very wicked humanity (and concommitantly [I think I'm using, and spelling, this word correctly], all living creatures "in whom was the breath of life), obviously excepting those on the Ark. If He had intended to completely do away with sin, He'd have had to wipe EVERYTHING out (all living things) - but His purpose in redeeming sinful man had not yet been fulfilled, since Jesus had not yet been born, and so could not have been killed and thus offer His life as a sacrifice for sin, if sin had been completely done away with at that time. In Christ, Douglas

07-01-2002, 07:31 AM	#14
Douglas J. Bender Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Elkhart, Indiana (USA) Posts: 460	MrDarwin, You neglect or forget two important "ingredients" in God's "experiment" - love, and free will. God granted humans free will, but loved them enough to want to redeem them from their sins. Mankind had apparently become so wicked by the time of Noah that God, in His omniscience, knew it was necessary to "start over", lest the world become too wicked for His purpose to be accomplished, or something like this. But there will come a day when He will put an end to rebellion, at Jesus' Second Coming (and particularly at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ, after Satan is loosed from his prison, and is defeated). And there will come a day when there will be "new heavens and a new Earth", in which there is no taint of sin or corruption. But God's purposes in Jesus and the Church had to be (have yet to be) fulfilled first. In Christ, Douglas

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.