What was the point of the flood?

[Sinthesis]

The prime violation committed by Sodom was not that they sought to treat the males as females. Their offence against God was their desire to violate and thus pervert anyone, regardless of gender.

 

[mondar]

Hi Deborah,

I was trying to figure out what you were referring to, then I saw the bold highlight of mondar's post. You're not judging mondar are you? I'm thinking if you agree with mondar regarding the nature of man and what he deserves, why would you think he's judgmental? Do you think I'm judgmental? I think we should leave room to ask questions to clarify what a person thinks, considering the medium we're using, rather than assuming what a person thinks.

I'll give it a try.

Mondar, why do you think that others seem to have the view that man is some innocent creation that never deserved God's wrath or judgment?

- Davies

Hello Davies, If you look at some of the earlier posts such as this....

Absolutely metaphorical. Not believed by rationally looking at the world around us.

If it is true God murdered millions of people including babies. That isn't rational, and is psychotic. So since God isn't an evil psychotic that drowns babies it is a metaphor.


As for the point of the story I don't really know.

The person above states that if the world wide flood of Noah is literally true, then God is a psychotic murderer of babies. The context of the Genesis does not seem to indicate it is to be taken metaphorically, nor does it indicate that the author was writing about a local flood. God sent a world wide flood and destroyed the lives of all but Noah and his family. Of course God's judgement in the flood included babies. Adams sin is imputed to men at conception. That is why David talks about his conception as being "in sin." (Psa 51:5). Imputed sin can also be seen in Rom 4:8 "Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin." Not everyone is saved, and some have imputed sin. Rom 5:12 "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:" Everyone dies because everyone is under original sin, or Adams imputed sin. If someone does not die, then he is not under original sin. If babies are not guilty of original sin, then they should not die. The bottom line is that anytime God brings about the death of people, he is just and righteous. IT shows that he does not wink at evil.

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deborah,

I was trying to figure out what you were referring to, then I saw the bold highlight of mondar's post. You're not judging mondar are you? I'm thinking if you agree with mondar regarding the nature of man and what he deserves, why would you think he's judgmental? Do you think I'm judgmental? I think we should leave room to ask questions to clarify what a person thinks, considering the medium we're using, rather than assuming what a person thinks.

I'll give it a try.

Mondar, why do you think that others seem to have the view that man is some innocent creation that never deserved God's wrath or judgment?

- Davies

I certainly do not think you are judgemental. Truthfully, I think you are one of the most lovely and humble men on these threads.
That being said, yes I was judging mondar's statement as being judgemental and assumming. Yes I am guilty. I should have asked him directly the very question you asked him. Thank you, for Godly correction.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I personally believe that the atmosphere changed after the flood which caused people to live shorter lives. It was God's attempt to limit evil in the world.

In the end, God needs no justification, he simply is and does what he deems to be right.

You are all over the place.

You have your "God" attempting to limit "evil" in the world. Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying?

Attempt?

 

[wonby1]

You are all over the place.

You have your "God" attempting to limit "evil" in the world. Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying?

Attempt?

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. We all know that God has everything mapped out as to what will happen.

 

[Aloysium]

i find this thread very interesting

Genesis and the story of Noah to me illustrate how differently ppl think

when it was developed, i think it's pretty clear that ppl
did not set out to write historical (there are no references in the bible to other writings,interviews etc) ,
allegorical, metaphorical, scientific (rock samples, measurements, etc) papers

they were quite simply writing about God, creation, and how we have found ourselves in such a sorry state

the meaning that it has for me is what it says:
that God created the world and it was good
unfortunately, evil grew and He had to destroy it, in order to maintain its goodness
Noah did God's will and thereby, the world was saved

i enjoyed the post that spoke about the wood of the ark, the one way in, the one window, etc;
all Christian symbols pointing to the eventual coming of Christ who would also save the world

i see the flood as an earthly description of how God deals (will deal) with sin;
death is the outcome for everything that is not love
the rainbow is the good news, offerings us the hope that we can overcome evil being like Noah, God's servant

 

[Davies]

The bottom line is that anytime God brings about the death of people, he is just and righteous. IT shows that he does not wink at evil.

Hi mondar,

I could see how you might have been perceived as judgmental, but your reference puts things into perspective. I never thought of sin being imputed when thinking of Adam. I have always thought of it as Adam and Eve, who are spiritually dead, have offspring that our spiritually dead. I am inclined to agree with your point of view. Without being born-again, it's a tough pill to swallow, our nature and the flood account.

- Davies

 

[Davies]

I certainly do not think you are judgemental. Truthfully, I think you are one of the most lovely and humble men on these threads.
That being said, yes I was judging mondar's statement as being judgemental and assumming. Yes I am guilty. I should have asked him directly the very question you asked him. Thank you, for Godly correction.

Hi Deborah13,

That was nice of you to say. It's nice if we can say what we think with the spirit of trying to understand or stating what we understand, and then say I was wrong. It can be tough, believe me. We are talking about our world view, and our conception of who God is, and nothing gets more personal than that.
So, let's be on guard together and grow in the grace of Jesus.

One of the things I think about is the flood shows there are real consequences to what we do, and it is God who is the Administrator. We would never subscribe evil to God, but God will use evil for His purposes. The account of Job is an excellent example of this. But the good thing about there being real consequences for our sin is that there is real grace!

- Davies

 

[stovebolts]

Absolutely metaphorical. Not believed by rationally looking at the world around us.

If it is true God murdered millions of people including babies. That isn't rational, and is psychotic. So since God isn't an evil psychotic that drowns babies it is a metaphor.


As for the point of the story I don't really know.

In other words, God doesn't fit your idea of who you want him to be, so you'll just kick against the goads. Got it.

By the way, go read the story of Joshua. Is Jericho also just a metaphor? Keep in mind that even the livestock was put to death along with the women and children. And do you remember what Saul did to disobey God? That's right, he not only brought back the King, but he brought back the Virgins when God told him to explicitly kill them all including their livestock which Samuel admonishes him for. Metaphor? I don't think so.

Have you read Lamentations lately? I suppose women eating their children is also a metaphor? God caused that too.

But you can learn something from Jeremiah when he wrote Lamentations because I don't ever recall him calling God irrational or psychotic while in the midst of all that insanity. Yet he did not call the situation a metaphore, so perhaps you need to adopt the mindset of the prophets who experienced destruction at God's hand to better understand. Just a suggestion.

Honestly, you've got some things to work out about God and who he is and what he does and why he does the things he does. You admit that you don't understand the point of the story and that's a good thing that your honest. But some things in the Bible will cause you to pause for a moment and dig deeper. Scripture is correct when it says "God is love". But Biblical love isn't what we consider love in our society.

Keep studying. Keep wrestling.... But never say something about something else because you don't understand it. Don't form God in your image. Let God be God and be patient as you leave your mind open to God's will.

Grace and Peace.

 

[JCitoL]

The prime violation committed by Sodom was not that they sought to treat the males as females. Their offence against God was their desire to violate and thus pervert anyone, regardless of gender.

did not you see in Genesis 19:3-13 and Judges 19:21-30 how they raped men sexually and did not prefer/want to have sex with women?!, this is because they were worshippers of "molech" whose doctrine was the other men (viz. those who are not its worshippers) to be treated as women, for it promised them that they will thus become very manly and so very godlike, that's why there was a commandment against the worship of molech

Leviticus 18:21-22 "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to(i.e. as a sacrifice to the cult/worship of) Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

because the doctrine of molech was its worshippers to treat the other men as women even if it needs to rape them sexually

Blessings

 

[mondar]

Hi mondar,
I could see how you might have been perceived as judgmental, but your reference puts things into perspective.

Hmm, unfortunately this one goes right past me. I do not get it.

I never thought of sin being imputed when thinking of Adam. I have always thought of it as Adam and Eve, who are spiritually dead, have offspring that our spiritually dead. I am inclined to agree with your point of view. Without being born-again, it's a tough pill to swallow, our nature and the flood account.
- Davies

Agreed. Certainly those who are spiritually dead will not give life to those spiritually alive, or innocent. The scripture is clear that we are "dead in our sins and trespasses."

 

[wonby1]

Absolutely metaphorical. Not believed by rationally looking at the world around us.

If it is true God murdered millions of people including babies. That isn't rational, and is psychotic. So since God isn't an evil psychotic that drowns babies it is a metaphor.


As for the point of the story I don't really know.

Was God sending his Son to die on a cross just a metaphor as well?

I think that you will find throughout scripture this disconnect with the Almighty. For example, Uzziah comes to mind when he went to stop the Ark of the Covenant from sliding off a wagon. He was instantly killed. In fact, they were warned not to ever touch it for any reason. David's response was understandable. It was simlar to yours. It was a mixture of outrage and abject fear and dread. It makes one stand back and reflect what we really think we know about God, much in the same way Abraham must have felt when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac. In fact, as believers we are all faced with similar dilemmas. Why did God let him or her die or get sick? Why could God let so and so do this to me etc.?

What I believe is that God is love, therefore, the study of God is really a study about love. So what is love? Is it not predicated upon free will? For example, if I am not free to love, but required to do so or required not to do so, then it no longer is love. So enters free will and all the tricks and traps that come along with it. For example, at some point if you love you will suffer. The person you love will either reject you or leave you or let you down at some point. There is no way around it. So you see, love is a double edged swords, but I say it's worth it!!

As for God's intentions, I believe that he ultimately knows what is best for us and for mankind, so if killing off a certain segment of society accomplishes his goals to this end then so be it. After all, in all of these instances the Bible describes such mass killings as curbing wickedness in some way or another. Sin is the object of God's wrath, not us unless we choose to increase in such sin.

On the one hand, we agree on some level that if God is really love then he should try to end all suffering. However, if sin causes suffering then where does that leave sinners like us? It is my belief that God's goal is to redeem us to the best of his ability and then those that do not will ultimately be cast out of his kingdom. Of course, that brings us to the doctrine of hell, doesn't it? It is yet another seeming contradiction for a God of love. However, if we truly have free will, we will have the freedom to reject God and some will do so, otherwise it was never really free will to begin with, was it? For me, hell is the end of suffering for those that choose God.

Of course, those that say that God would never allow such suffering I would also ask them why he allows such suffering on earth? I've seen enough to know that life can be hell on earth. So if it is allowed here why do we insist it is not also allowed in the next life as well?