Whateverman asks...
God regretted the way he'd created humanity - right?
regret
verb
1.to feel sorrow or remorse for (an act, fault, disappointment, etc.):
He no sooner spoke than he regretted it.
2.to think of with a sense of loss:
to regret one's vanished youth.
The Lord saw that the human beings on the earth were very wicked and that everything they thought about was evil. He was sorry he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will destroy all human beings that I made on the earth. And I will destroy every animal and everything that crawls on the earth and the birds of the air, because I am sorry I have made them." Genesis 6:5-7
Perhaps God did not regret "the way" he made humanity. Rather, the text seems to indicate that God regretted that he had made humanity at all.
What was the cause of God's disappointment? Verse 5 seems to indicate that it was man's choice to be evil that was the disappointment.
Because God is holy (set apart, perfect and pure), God cannot abide wickedness and evil of man.
So the humanity that God created chose evil rather than choosing God's righteousness, and by their own choice, they prevent themselves from being with God.
God has "lost" every one of the people that he created. God is troubled by the great loss of these people. By their own choice, all of these people are already "lost" to God. Even if God allows the people to live, they still cannot be with him. So there is no loss to God if they are all destroyed.
Except that God finds one man, Noah, who chooses God's righteousness.
cf. Isaiah 51
---
Perhaps the idea that God was "sorry" is a rudimentary illustration. Perhaps it serves as a picture we can understand, which illustrates an idea which we can not fully comprehend.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sight
Darmog asks...
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
The "sight" referred to here is a shadow. What God is concerned with is the condition of your heart. God wants the eyes of your heart opened, so that your heart can have "sight".
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you (Ephesians 1:18 NIV)
We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives (Colossians 1:9 NIV)
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
The "sight" referred to here is a shadow. What God is concerned with is the condition of your heart. God wants the eyes of your heart opened, so that your heart can have "sight".
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you (Ephesians 1:18 NIV)
We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives (Colossians 1:9 NIV)
Sacrifice
Darmog asks...
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Dear Darmog,
There is no need for you to offer burnt sacrifices to the Lord. You are not under the commands of the Old Covenant. God takes no delight in a mechanical sacrifice offered from a false heart.
(See Isaiah 1:4,14-17, Amos 5:21-24)
What pleases the Lord is a clean heart, and the actions that emanate from it.
The sacrifices of the Old Covenant were only a shadow, pointing to the only sufficient sacrifice, done once and for all.
(See e.g. Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12.)
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Dear Darmog,
There is no need for you to offer burnt sacrifices to the Lord. You are not under the commands of the Old Covenant. God takes no delight in a mechanical sacrifice offered from a false heart.
(See Isaiah 1:4,14-17, Amos 5:21-24)
What pleases the Lord is a clean heart, and the actions that emanate from it.
The sacrifices of the Old Covenant were only a shadow, pointing to the only sufficient sacrifice, done once and for all.
(See e.g. Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12.)
Monday, May 16, 2011
why should we try ...
Mudley asks...
Ray, regardless of whether or not Hell exists, why should we try to avoid going there?
It seems to me that the bible is clear that we are all deserving of hell. So why should we try to avoid the punishment we deserve? It seems like the whole Jesus thing is just some legal loophole to let people off the hook.
Dishonest people exploit loopholes for their benefit. Honest people take what they deserve.
So tell me why you are so desperately trying to avoid the punishment you admit that you deserve?
@Mudley
The short answer: it's what God wants.
It's not about what I desire, Mudley. It's about what God desires.
Ray, regardless of whether or not Hell exists, why should we try to avoid going there?
It seems to me that the bible is clear that we are all deserving of hell. So why should we try to avoid the punishment we deserve? It seems like the whole Jesus thing is just some legal loophole to let people off the hook.
Dishonest people exploit loopholes for their benefit. Honest people take what they deserve.
So tell me why you are so desperately trying to avoid the punishment you admit that you deserve?
@Mudley
The short answer: it's what God wants.
It's not about what I desire, Mudley. It's about what God desires.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
glaring error
RickA said...
Several people have posted evidence that disproves the Biblical account. Maybe you missed the posts but they are there. Go back and read through all the threads.
Here is just one of the things that prove Genesis wrong that was posted on the first day of this "trial":
Genesis claims that God created light on the first day and divided the light from the darkness and that was the first morning and first evening. We know this is wrong because according to Genesis God didn't create stars that produce light until the 4th day.
You cannot have light without stars and you can't have a morning and a night without the earth rotating and pointing different parts of the earth towards the Sun.
Several people posted this glaring error and last time I checked not one Creationist even attempted a reply. Will you be the first?
@RickA
Actually, RickA, this point has been refuted numerous times. And not just by "creationists". (I seem to recall that even Steven_J weighed in on this.)
This "glaring error" you observe only appears when you inject an unwarranted assumption into the text, specifically, the idea that either of the creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
The apparent "contradiction" between the two creation accounts has also been raised, numerous times. And, again, the source of that "contradiction" is the assumption that both of the accounts are presented in chronological order.
We easily recognize that at least one of the two accounts is not presented in chronological order. That's pretty easy to figure out. What seems to be more difficult for some to decipher, is that there is no warrant for the idea that either of the accounts is ordered chronologically.
Instead, we find the ideas are presented in an order that emphasizes the author's main idea. It appears that the author is emphasizing the hierarchy of creation.
We observe the author includes a helpful mnemonic, a way for us to recognize God's creative power, and His creation, each and everyday of the week.
Several people have posted evidence that disproves the Biblical account. Maybe you missed the posts but they are there. Go back and read through all the threads.
Here is just one of the things that prove Genesis wrong that was posted on the first day of this "trial":
Genesis claims that God created light on the first day and divided the light from the darkness and that was the first morning and first evening. We know this is wrong because according to Genesis God didn't create stars that produce light until the 4th day.
You cannot have light without stars and you can't have a morning and a night without the earth rotating and pointing different parts of the earth towards the Sun.
Several people posted this glaring error and last time I checked not one Creationist even attempted a reply. Will you be the first?
@RickA
Actually, RickA, this point has been refuted numerous times. And not just by "creationists". (I seem to recall that even Steven_J weighed in on this.)
This "glaring error" you observe only appears when you inject an unwarranted assumption into the text, specifically, the idea that either of the creation accounts are presented in chronological order.
The apparent "contradiction" between the two creation accounts has also been raised, numerous times. And, again, the source of that "contradiction" is the assumption that both of the accounts are presented in chronological order.
We easily recognize that at least one of the two accounts is not presented in chronological order. That's pretty easy to figure out. What seems to be more difficult for some to decipher, is that there is no warrant for the idea that either of the accounts is ordered chronologically.
Instead, we find the ideas are presented in an order that emphasizes the author's main idea. It appears that the author is emphasizing the hierarchy of creation.
We observe the author includes a helpful mnemonic, a way for us to recognize God's creative power, and His creation, each and everyday of the week.
Monday, April 25, 2011
never ever looked at nature
Ryk said...
"I have never ever looked at nature and thought that there is even the slightest appearance of design. Nothing natural whether plant, animal, crystal or mountain looks designed in the slightest. I have however looked at designs and thought that they resemble nature."
@Ryk
You've never observed even the "slightest" appearance of design. I see that to be possible only if we take you to mean that you have "never ever looked at nature."
You say you've "looked at designs.". Designs of what, might we well ask. You say you observe design in "nothing natural". So, these things you observe design in, we must therefore conclude, be unnatural things.
If everything that exists is nature, and there is nothing that exists beyond nature, then what exactly are these 'unnatural' things you are observing design in?
Perhaps you observe design in the products of human intelligence. I think it's reasonable to ask, is human intelligence not natural? Or, are the products of human intelligence anything other than a product of nature?
You say that these "designs" you observe "resemble" nature, in which you stated you observe no design.
One wonders what resemblance you observe. We already know it isn't design, since you've ruled out "even the slightest appearance of design" as a similar feature.
"I have never ever looked at nature and thought that there is even the slightest appearance of design. Nothing natural whether plant, animal, crystal or mountain looks designed in the slightest. I have however looked at designs and thought that they resemble nature."
@Ryk
You've never observed even the "slightest" appearance of design. I see that to be possible only if we take you to mean that you have "never ever looked at nature."
You say you've "looked at designs.". Designs of what, might we well ask. You say you observe design in "nothing natural". So, these things you observe design in, we must therefore conclude, be unnatural things.
If everything that exists is nature, and there is nothing that exists beyond nature, then what exactly are these 'unnatural' things you are observing design in?
Perhaps you observe design in the products of human intelligence. I think it's reasonable to ask, is human intelligence not natural? Or, are the products of human intelligence anything other than a product of nature?
You say that these "designs" you observe "resemble" nature, in which you stated you observe no design.
One wonders what resemblance you observe. We already know it isn't design, since you've ruled out "even the slightest appearance of design" as a similar feature.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Genesis contradicts itself
Albert said...
Gen 1:1 Genesis not only contradicts science, it also contradicts itself. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Albert,
You seem to be inventing contradictions. Yes, you are quite correct to observe that the order of events in the two accounts is entirely different. But the two accounts are not at all contradictory, rather, they are complementary.
Each of the accounts emphasizes different ideas.
The key to understanding is to recognize that in the second account, the author presents the ideas in an order that emphasizes his main ideas. And this happens to be an order which is not a chronological order.
Some, of course, object that this idea is just a "trick" to twist and contort the meaning of Scripture.
I would counter that the author of the second creation account gives no indication that his purpose is to present events in chronological order, or that doing so would serve his purpose, to emphasize his main ideas.
The idea that the second account is presented chronologically is unwarranted. One might go so far as to say that injecting that meaning into the text is a "trick" to invent an apparent contradiction.
Gen 1:1 Genesis not only contradicts science, it also contradicts itself. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Albert,
You seem to be inventing contradictions. Yes, you are quite correct to observe that the order of events in the two accounts is entirely different. But the two accounts are not at all contradictory, rather, they are complementary.
Each of the accounts emphasizes different ideas.
The key to understanding is to recognize that in the second account, the author presents the ideas in an order that emphasizes his main ideas. And this happens to be an order which is not a chronological order.
Some, of course, object that this idea is just a "trick" to twist and contort the meaning of Scripture.
I would counter that the author of the second creation account gives no indication that his purpose is to present events in chronological order, or that doing so would serve his purpose, to emphasize his main ideas.
The idea that the second account is presented chronologically is unwarranted. One might go so far as to say that injecting that meaning into the text is a "trick" to invent an apparent contradiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)