Originally posted by thorvoI am yet to talk to anyone who can explain to me the meaning or purpose or justification for punishment in any other contexts except:
The whole point of punishment is to make someone pay for his actions.
1. Revenge.
2. Behavior correction.
3. Deterrent to others.
I don't see how any of the above fits the situation.
It is often assumed by some people that punishment is 'right' or 'just' without actually thinking too deep about what punishment is all about.
Originally posted by thorvoWhat words am I twisting? The whole point of Noah getting drunk, I think, was to deaden his pain. We Christians get all caught up in the cute story of animals two by two getting on a boat. In fact, we are so in love with this story that you can find wallpaper borders for children's rooms with cute little depictions of this "event." But I never find any depictions of Noah drunk and exposing himself which is really too bad since it is such an important part of the story.
You like to twist people's words, eh? Thats not nice.
Yes, Noah does get drunk. Who says he was perfect? everyone sins. But the point is that Noah followed and believed in the Lord and obeyed Him much more than the other people. The other people worshipped other gods and were rebellious to God. They did not believe in God. I don't know what you are trying to say by bringing up that Noah got drunk.
Look, you love the Bible. Let's put it all in there.
Originally posted by kirksey957Also the story is almost always portrayed as "God saving Noah and company" rather than the more factual "God wiping out just about everything in an excessively violent manner." When did you see a wall paper showing all the other animals (and people) getting drowned?
What words am I twisting? The whole point of Noah getting drunk, I think, was to deaden his pain. We Christians get all caught up in the cute story of animals two by two getting on a boat. In fact, we are so in love with this story that you can find wallpaper borders for children's rooms with cute little depictions of this "event." But I never find an ...[text shortened]... uch an important part of the story.
Look, you love the Bible. Let's put it all in there.
Somehow the flood gets portrayed as a natural disaster and God the rescuing hero.
Originally posted by SwissGambitfor a little while yes. but do you think it would still show now? or even 4000 years ago? Mt. Helens erupted and for miles around it the vegetation was burned. Yet now most of the ashes and stuff has disappeared and there is vegetation again. its been abut 25 years now since its eruption. Now, what God would do would be different, but how long do you think any sign of forest fires, charred bodies would last?
Really? No charred corpses? Forest fires?
Originally posted by twhiteheadPeople don't always know what kind of punishment is right. Sometimes they do, other times they dont. But since we are God's creation, He knows us, and knows what we deserve. It may seem too harsh to us at times, yet we dont always realize the sin that the person/people commited to deserve it. It seems like you haven't caught on that the people were sinning greatly against God. If you had someone steal your house, murder someone of your family, put a curse on you, etc. would you think they deserved punishment? or woudl you let them get off scott-free? Another thing, if God hadn't punished the people for their sins, today there would still be all of that and probably more wickedness. Do you want the earth to be filled with evil people who do constant evilness? what a horrible life that would be. Personally, I think its better that the flood destroyed all those evil people than still have them or their descendants today doing the same thing.
I am yet to talk to anyone who can explain to me the meaning or purpose or justification for punishment in any other contexts except:
1. Revenge.
2. Behavior correction.
3. Deterrent to others.
I don't see how any of the above fits the situation.
It is often assumed by some people that punishment is 'right' or 'just' without actually thinking too deep about what punishment is all about.
Originally posted by kirksey957When you began talking about the children in Hiroshima and stuff. Thats when you were twisting my words.
What words am I twisting? The whole point of Noah getting drunk, I think, was to deaden his pain. We Christians get all caught up in the cute story of animals two by two getting on a boat. In fact, we are so in love with this story that you can find wallpaper borders for children's rooms with cute little depictions of this "event." But I never find an ...[text shortened]... uch an important part of the story.
Look, you love the Bible. Let's put it all in there.
As far as Noah getting drunk, yes, it is virtually never depicted. Yet why would we show a man naked? To tell the story, ok, but I don't see why we need to have posters of that. Also, his getting drunk was after the flood. The story told is the flood. A bit of difference there. But it still is an important part of the Bible that people should hear about.
I noticed you said "We Christians." Are you a Christian?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, it many times is portrayed as that. But many times it is included that God wiped out the rest of the people from the face of the earth. You seem to think what God did was too harsh and cruel, yet you fail to realize why he did that. You ignore the fact that the people were doing so much wrong that God had to destroy them. You would probably be arguing that God was cruel even if he did destroyed them in a different way. I haven't ever seen a wall paper showing people get drowned, yet I have seen some movies that show that.
Also the story is almost always portrayed as "God saving Noah and company" rather than the more factual "God wiping out just about everything in an excessively violent manner." When did you see a wall paper showing all the other animals (and people) getting drowned?
Somehow the flood gets portrayed as a natural disaster and God the rescuing hero.
Originally posted by thorvoAm I a Christian? I own this forum.
When you began talking about the children in Hiroshima and stuff. Thats when you were twisting my words.
As far as Noah getting drunk, yes, it is virtually never depicted. Yet why would we show a man naked? To tell the story, ok, but I don't see why we need to have posters of that. Also, his getting drunk was after the flood. The story told is the flood. A b ...[text shortened]... le that people should hear about.
I noticed you said "We Christians." Are you a Christian?
Originally posted by thorvo
He had to flood the whole earth to punish mankind because that was his way of getting rid of the incredible wickedness of the people on the earth. He chose that way, for whatever his reasons.
So, basically you're saying that even though you and I both could come
up with what seems to be either more humane, or more effective, more
convenient, or more sensible ways of addressing this same issue, you
simply set aside all of these things because of your complete deference
to the idea that 'God knows what he's doing.'
And why do you assume that the people were all over the earth?
Because we have records of their being all over the place. Do you disbelieve
these records?
It hadn't been too long after God made Adam and Eve that he sent the flood. Like 1000 years, maybe more, I dont know.
According to calculations from chapter 5 of Genesis (assuming that we
take at face value the accuracy of the geneology, and that people for
some reason lived five-to-nine times older than today, with modern
medicine and nutrition...), about 1700 years after Creation.
So, let's use some figures by Creationist a scholar. Check this site out:
http://ldolphin.org/pickett.html
If you pan to the bottom of the page, depending on how you calculate
when the flood is, and how many children you want to figure each person
had, he comes to a range of 2 billion to 11.5 billion. Let's be conservative
and say it's 2 billion. Do you think that every single one of those
two billion -- infants, elderly, children and adults -- was so evil as to
deserve death?
But the people didn't spread out everywhere. I wasnt there to see how Noah preached, or if he traveled all around the world to preach. But it does say that Noah told the people over and over to repent.
It does? I can't find a single reference about Noah's preaching.
But let's pretend he did preach. Do you think that all two billion lived
in an area proximate enough to Noah for him to preach? Do you believe
that no one was living in North and South America or that Noah went
there? Do you believe that Noah went to modern-day China or England?
Yes, I believe that only Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives were the only good people on the earth at the time.
So you think that 2 billion people, minus eight were so evil and depraved
that God had no choice but to eradicate them after giving them a
chance to repent? All of them?
Surely if God saved Noah and his family, very few out of so many wicked, why would he not save someone else that were good too? it doesnt make sense.
Do you think it makes sense that 2 billion people were that evil? Do
you think that it makes sense that 2 billion people all were offered the
chance to repent? Do you think that it makes sense that infants were
also slaughtered, even though they lacked the capacity for evil or goodness?
I don't think these things make any sense, especially if you attribute
the characteristics of compassion, clemency, righteousness, and
generosity to God like I do (that's not to mention the notion of free will,
for what good is free will if, upon exercising it, you get smitten).
And, since there is no scientific evidence of a world-wide flood and given
that God's character is inconsistent with such a savage slaughtering of
humankind, I reject the historicity of the account. If I did believe in the
historicity of the flood, I could not, in good faith, worship a 'god' who was
so depraved, for that 'god' is not the same 'God' who embodies the
essence of love (agape).
Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvoFear of punishment is coercion. To say, the consequences of not loving
God doesn't control us like robots. He wants us to love him, and if he forces us to, then its not real love.
me is to choose everlasting (or even temporary) torture, is the definition
of being forced.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is not the definition of being forced. I believe in Christ as my savior not because I dont want to go to hell, but because I want to live with Hiim and serve Him and have Him as my friend. I am sure most other christians beleive in God other than because they dont want to go to hell. That doesn't mean we dont want to go to hell, but that isn't what makes us come to accept Christ as our Savior.
Fear of punishment is coercion. To say, the consequences of not loving
me is to choose everlasting (or even temporary) torture, is the definition
of being forced.
Nemesio