From my point of view, God is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. When God doesn’t enact judgment, people become angry at Him because of the evil in the world. But when God does enact judgement, people become angry at Him for doing so. Just a thought...
"When a human kills someone they remove that person from their plane of existence for selfish and hateful reasons." Mercy killings, self defense, or, perhaps even euthanasia may be different way of looking at human killing. Maybe it's a case by case basis. Intent may be the factor.
Of course intent is a factor. This isn’t a book on ethics. I’m briefly explaining the ontological differences between humans and God. Please don’t get nit-picky.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hey Mike... Are you going to do a flood video in reference to how you interpret the bible verses in genesis 9 when God makes the covenant to never again have the waters become a flood to destroy all life/flesh? I thought it would surely be the elephant in the room... The biggest objection to a regional vs global flood. I suspect your argument would involve the SCOPE/SIZE of the regional flood, since tsunamis happen regularly... So I have a few questions for you: 1. If the persian gulf is what was left after the waters receded (Which is roughly the size of the great lakes in North America), Then how big do you think Noah's flood originally was? Was it 2-3 times the size of the Persian gulf/ great lakes? 2. Can you point me towards scientific sources that you have for the flood in the persian gulf that a Christian like me can point non-believers towards? 3. Is there any scientific evidence of any flood in the past 10000 years being similar in size or bigger than the Persian gulf/ great lakes?
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. th-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/w-d-xo.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. Hh
Why is it hateful and selfish to put a person out of existence? The victim ceased to exist; he doesn’t think, he doesn’t remember, he doesn’t feel anything any longer
My struggle with the idea that even animals died in the flood isn’t the fact that God took their life. It’s the fact that this account seemed to have Him do it in such a painful, terrifying, and agonizing way for the animals.
I am too even though i am atheist myself. IP is the only christian channel i have found that has any valid points or even close to logical arguments for god and bible.
@@MiskaVlogi A video from Inspiring Philosophy form April this year says the flood amy have happened around 8000 bC, but the genealogies in The bible point to around 2500 BC and David, Solomon etc being alive around 1000 or 900 BC.
A video from Inspiring Philosophy form April this year says the flood amy have happened around 8000 bC, but the genealogies in The bible point to around 2500 BC and David, Solomon etc being alive around 1000 or 900 BC.
What do you think of darkmatter2525's video on the flood? And answersingenesis' articles refuting the proposition that the Hebrew word "Aretz" should be translated as "country" or land" instead of "earth" in the flood story. That interpretation would even contradict the New Testament.
TheVirusSoftware dude answers in genesis lies a lot not to be trusted and this is coming from aChristian also why would ip lie he gave very good evidence to support his view
How is the christian community in India? a bit ago David from Acts 17 did a vid on persecution there... from your experience what have you seen or heard? Blessings in the Name of Jesus from Florida in the US of A
@@AD-en5dq Very bad, brother. In India there is caste system, and uppercaste Hindus systematically persecute Christians, Muslims, and dalits(lower caste). While India can't be defined in one line. But India is a good nation as 90%indians are very peacefull and innocent persons, the remaining 10%are upper caste Hindus who are BJP(Indian so called nationalist party) supporters.
@@AD-en5dq th-cam.com/video/CaftUUHuewE/w-d-xo.html This is how they persecute.but sadly its one case which got popularity but there are thousands of cases happening daily. Im a born hindu ,but i rejected Hinduism.Once I shared this thought on facebook ,I received threatening and mockery messages by persons whom i never knew.So its easy to imagine the amount of hatred in fanatic hindus.However i again remeined that india is a very diverse country so different places in india have very diffrent response,but overall anti christian sentiments is increasing by Bjp/upper caste support party.You can very easily google it.Indian Hindus who go to foreign nation like america ,european nations want secularism in other nation while they want hindu-nation in india.this is their hypocricy.
Great video, IP. I know I speak on behalf of many when saying that 'I enjoy this Genesis series'. - May I ask btw, where do you get this beautiful and fitting background music?
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hey IP... Are you going to do a flood video in reference to how you interpret the bible verses in genesis 9 when God makes the rainbow covenant to never again have the waters become a flood to destroy all life/flesh? I suspect it would involve the scope of the flood since tsunamis happen regularly... So I have a few questions for you: 1. If the persian gulf is what was left after the waters receded (Which is roughly the size of the great lakes in North America), Then how big do you think Noah's flood originally was? Was it 2-3 times the size of the Persian gulf/ great lakes? 2. Can you point me towards scientific sources that you have for the flood in the persian gulf that a Christian like me can point non-believers towards? 3. Is there any scientific evidence of any flood in the past 10000 years being bigger than the Persian gulf/ great lakes?
This just sounds like damage-control propped up by major textual interpolations. 3:36 - You state that God brought the flood with remose, but the passage you show on screen, Genesis 6, describes God’s remorse at having made humans, not at having caused the flood. 3:55 - “It is philosophically impossible for God to kill anyone the way a human kills someone.” (planes of existence etc.) - So, if I kill someone, they don’t go to Heaven or Hell, they just get annihilated? Can God *not* annihilate people? And if God moves them to Hell rather than annihilating them, isn't that worse? This needs a lot more fleshing out: it sounds like an ad-hoc excuse. 5:05 - “It is possible there were no children that died in the flood.” - Yeah, it’s also possible that the Teletubbies were there too, but I wouldn’t rest my argument on the mere possibility of that idea. I realize that you go on to argue that Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the local area of the flood, would have had so much violence that children would not have been there, therefore, God didn’t kill any innocent children. Problem is, there is no evidence for this at all (see below). Additionally, we have countless ongoing modern examples of children in war zones getting killed, so the idea that no children would have survived in such an area seems very flimsy. 5:26 - “… the flood was sent because of violence that was on the face of the land." - That's a nice idea, but Genesis 6:12, which you show on screen, simply says that, “…all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.” That doesn't sound like violence to me: by God’s standard, many things could be counted as "corruption", (blasphemy, not keeping the sabbath holy, etc.) so how is it that you read that passage and say, "Ah yes, it was violence, specifically, such extreme violence as the world had never seen"? That seems like a huge interpolation. 7:35 - Nowhere in the passages you cite does the word “violence”, or even the implication thereof, occur; these passages all refer to “sin”, and “corruption”, and “wickedness”, which, again, could be something as simple as blasphemy: you're reading it as "unimaginable violence" because it suits your conclusion, not because there's any actual evidence for it. Your conclusion that the wickedness upon the land must have been unimaginable violence, and that there must have been no children there, seems disingenuous. The passages you cite say nothing of the sort, and the only reason anyone would come away from the text thinking this is because the person is desperate to justify God's actions, no matter what they are. It seems to me that the later Biblical authors you cite at 5:38, who obviously weren’t there, are just making up excuses for God the same way you are. Now, is anything you argued impossible? No, I don' think so; you can reconcile just about anything, but this does not seem like an honest reading of the text at all.
1. I addressed that verse more in a previous video of this series: th-cam.com/video/2BzkoFpnAVk/w-d-xo.html 2. I didn't say that, it is about the action, and your aim. I am not denying intent is ay play, but if you were omnipresent and so if anyone you killed never left your presence it would certainly affect your reasons for killing, because you could not remove them like murder does for us. As for hell see my video on it: th-cam.com/video/tiYf6ITgWbk/w-d-xo.html 3. Remember, this section is a response to atheists who say an all good and omnipotent God should have found a better way? Well if accept an all good and omnipotent God should have found a better way and the flood was regional then there is a solution, which I provided. You cannot say God was evil for drowning children and when the text doesn't say that and he could have provided an opportunity for them to leave, like with Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course there is no evidence, but there is also no evidence children drowned in the flood, so we all even now. 4. That is clearly hyperbole, as explained in a previous video: th-cam.com/video/Q07gxxbggJs/w-d-xo.html 5. Then read the whole chapter, that was just a sample: Genesis 6:11 - Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. Genesis 6:13, - And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. "Your conclusion that the wickedness upon the land must have been unimaginable violence, and that there must have been no children there, seems disingenuous. The passages you cite say nothing of the so" - What verse says children drowned?
1. In that video, you specifically argued that God did *not* feel remorse, since this would imply that God made a mistake. You went on to say that it was actually God's sense of justice. So why would God feel any "sadness" over causing the flood? It seems impossible that God could have had any kind of internal conflict about this. Thus, I don't see how the flood could possibly have been brought "with remorse" as you put it.
2. At best, this simply gives God one less bad reason to inflict this harm on someone; it doesn't make his actual reason necessarily good, and it doesn't change the harm itself. He's still damaging the victim in the same way that *I* would if *I* were to kill someone. The fact that the killer didn't do it simply so he could remove the victim from his own presence doesn't make the victim feel any better about losing connection with his family and his life, and it doesn't automatically make the killer's actions noble. Heck, I could imagine a person going around lethally stabbing people, even if he knew that those people would come back to life the next day: some people just like harming others, and so too, it seems, does God. And do you honestly think the victim's situation is made better by the idea that their killer will be there to greet them on the other side? If anything, that would almost make it *worse*. 2.5. Okay, same basic question: why wouldn't God simply annihilate people who are set to be "locked in" to their Hell? Heck, why would he allow this fire to burn *forever* in the first place? That seems like a major design flaw. As an engineer, I can tell you that this kind of failure mode would be unacceptable in any design. And if I were addicted to something that was destroying me, I would trust my family to stage an intervention, but apparently, God is not as loving as my human family. 3. I applaud your literary creativity in trying to square a loving God with the fact that he killed people, and as I said, there's nothing technically illogical about your interpretation, but this does not seem like an honest reading of the text at all: the text says that "the Earth" was corrupt, and that, "...I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created..." (which would seem to be all of them) (Genesis 6:7). If this were a critical reading question on a test, the correct answer would be that God wiped out all of humanity except for Noah's family: that's what the story is about. 36/36 ACT material right there. In my high school English classes, I always thought about how funny it would be to write an essay which argued that the book we were studying was about obesity, or pornography, or something seemingly unrelated to the text itself, and I could have done it: it would have been so easy with some creative interpretation and textual interpolation. I thought about doing this because, honestly, this seemed to be par for the course in those classes: Jane Eyre's red curtains symbolized... uh, fear, or something, yeah, and that ties into all this other stuff because, well, wouldn't that be cool? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm seeing here, but worse: never mind what the text actually says, let's look at what it *doesn't* say and believe that instead (see the rest of my comment below for the continuation of this overall idea).
4. I understand, for example, that the phrase "God is my rock" cannot literally mean that God is a boulder somewhere, but only because the context makes this clear, and perhaps more importantly, because the authors at the time certainly didn't believe this about God. However, without these kinds of clear indicators, it seems to me that what you are choosing to call "hyperbole" is not based on the text itself, or even on the contemporary theology. Rather, your choice of what is and isn't figurative language seems to be based on what you a-priori believe: ancient Jews *did* believe, for example, that the firmament physically existed, and that it had windows to let water in as rain. The only reason you could possibly glean a different meaning from these passages is because you already know that they are factually wrong, so now you're doing damage control instead of conceding that the author was mistaken.
5. Ah, I see, I will concede that it does specifically say "violence" in addition to corruption. Good point, although I maintain that it does not paint the kind of war-zone picture you do.
6. "What verse says children drowned?" Uh, most of Genesis 6? Which talks about the Earth being filled with humans who he will blot out? That's where I get the idea. Besides, what verse says that it was only a *local* flood? And what verse says that any *women* drowned? (maybe I've got some kind of feminist ideology to save, idk). Once again, it sounds like you're selectively hand-waving away the bad stuff and interpolating any desired good stuff instead of actually reading the words in their literary and historical context. This is the exact same thing moderate Muslims do when confronted with verses about Jihad and the status of infidels. If you're willing to label anything as hyperbole or symbolic, or to interpolate some additional information or some higher purpose, then you could even interpret Mein Kampf to be about peace and love, which you and I would both say is a gross misunderstanding of the text. My point is this: even if there *was* a verse which said that children were drowned, you would be perfectly happy to wrangle up some kind of excuse for why it was okay, or why it's just a metaphor, as I'm sure you do with the slaughter of the *Canaanite* children. You wouldn't be technically wrong if you chose to do this, but by allowing this level of interpolation and hand-waving, you have made your position completely unfalsifiable, and almost completely detached from the text itself; everything in the text that you disagree with *must* have been hyperbole or metaphor or something. You conclude this, not because the text actually indicates this, but because you simply cannot bring yourself to say that the Bible got some things wrong.
Because people have misconceptions about "good people" Being good should not be defined by human, God who define good and bad, first we should know what the right religion after that we can understand life
"Why do bad things happen to good people ? It only happened once and He forgave them." Who forgave whom? God forgave the good people or the good people forgave God? 1. "God forgave the good people": Why? They didnt do bad right? Whats there to forgive? Why did the bad things happen to them? 2. "The good people forgave God": How can you forgive God? As far as I know, humans are in no place to do that. So what are you exactly trying to say here?
Amen, I appreciate your video's to put the text in its context of where it came from. This reminds me of Irving Finkel's correction on some people that think the text implies every single animal we have these days had to of been on the ark. He takes the approach of its region and the animals in that region and not the Global flood narrative. I appreciate you and Ben Stanhope's video's. Keep all the hard work up :)
Rather than whether moral or immoral, ask yourself if it is brutal, cruel, painful, terrorising... and then ask yourself why an omnipotent being resorts to such methods when every other method is still available to them? Why don't we let teachers and politicians use these methods on their students/civilians?
Viewer Discretion here’s the issue with your position. Asking whether something is brutal, terrorizing, etc, only matters in the context of morality. Also, other methods being available doesn’t matter if the method has a specific purpose and has specific effects after the fact.
@@6Churches there is a difference between "God" and a human . God has sovereignty to do whatever he wants. God would have destroyed all the humans because of sin but he extended grace and let people live the age they live some 100 years some 50 years some 40 years , some 1 year ,some 2 year etc it has to deal with God's decree and God's right over how a person will die and when will he die through natural or manual causes. God is not a human that he has to answer some one . God has the right to determine the age of the Human.
The ripple effect I suppose.looking at what has become of the world I we can safely say the adults today were children in the past. Also inocent back then.even Adolf was a innnocent child at some point.imagine Germany won the war and continued with their genocide campaign ...what type of adult would the next generation of children grown up to be?
I have a question and a suggestion. Where did you take all those footage that you put in your videos? Also what programs did you use for making of this videos? And the suggestion would be to make a video answering this questions so that you or us post a link when that question pops up, so that you don't have to write every time this sort of question are asked.
It doesn't really seem to stand to reason that God would command Noah to build a giant boat when he could just say "move 300 miles this way to avoid the flood". I think either the flood was completely global or it was completely symbolic.
Yes, because the thesis is not clear at all from this attempt to do so. Especially the conflict between God respecting people's free will (won't tell them directly about his love) but then murdering them by the thousands (very happy to tell them directly about his retribution).
What is InspiringPhilisophy's take on where the different races come from if the great flood was only regional? Or was it supposed to take place before ancient humanity had spread beyond that region? If this has been discussed in another video, kindly direct me there. Thanks!
Love IP, but I just don’t think that a regional flood is at all biblical. Very open to discussion, but why all the animals and the big ark (wouldn’t there be plenty of animals left in the rest of the world), why couldn’t they (Noah and family) just have moved to a safer place away from the flood, and why all the worldwide flood accounts? Also, does the Bible not say how the rest of humanity came from just Noah’s family after the flood? If it was regional, then there were plenty of families everywhere else and no need for a restart. Thoughts??
@@SomeRandomDude000000 According to the studies IP has, the flood happened between 13000 to 8500 years ago so things like the T-Rex would obviously be long dead but the saber-tooth cat and other ice age era animals could have been around.
@@Menzobarrenza Mammoths lives on Earth as recent as 2000 years ago. Although, they were highly-inbred and on an extrememly Northern island of Russia 🤣🤣🤣
Murder is murder. Not calling evil (murder, genocide, violence, destruction, etc.) evil, leads to confusion and that naturally makes man call evil good, and good evil to his greatest woe. Now, keeping that in mind, the Bible (by the way it has been written) clearly desplays such confusion (from the time of the Fall to the time of Jesus). So as one sinner reads the Bible, he/she is facing himself/herself. This does not mean though that the Bible teaches that the readers have to think this way.
as some theologians have argued, I think that God doesn't bring the flood directly or any calamity for that matter. Rather God merely leaves a sinful nation or group and the resulting horror is just a consequence of the lack of God's presence
@@user-oj3gb8nh2q who says they were without God? And they flourished at some points and at some they didn't. I think you are confusing God ''being'' with some people and people having theological knowledge about God
Why do bad things happen to devout Christians then? Doesn't that mean that he's abandoned them despite them doing his best to follow his commandments? He doesn't seem very nice if that's the case.
I really love this channel and the great content!!! I've learned so much and been pressed to consider mind-opening information!! I love how cool ideas are kicked around, and I always will! I don't always agree on all the ideas, of course. In this video, I totally agree that God is on a different plane than us; He is outside time&space (has worlds outside ours) and He is perfectly good and just (not something we can fathom in our sinful condition.) My main points of difference are as follows: First, it just HAD to be a worldwide flood because it is described as such! One simply reading will NOT assume it was regional because it is expressly stating every living thing that walked on the earth and breathed air that was not in the Ark got dead. Tons of geographical evidence and a cornucopia of historical legends agree to a worldwide flood! Second, if God is not unjust to kill innocent babies, and we can agree, many innocent babies die and God is still not unjust, then He was NOT unjust to destroy such a vast quantity of humanity, including children and babies. It is improbable that God should wait till there are no babies or children being alive or born before destroying even a region if He chose to. We already know "innocent" people, babies and children die in all manner of horrifying natural disasters or from diseases and God obviously allows such things to happen and yet He remains perfectly just. So, no need to rationalize God's killing babies. If anything, as in the case of destoying those who worshiped Molach (who burned their babies in the arms of blazing bronze statues), it was God's mercy to remove the children from one plane of existence to perhaps, we can only surmise, an existence into His blessed eternal presence. As for assuming the age of innocence: we are not in God's place to judge where these late babies and children go. If we knew, in certainty, all babies go to Heaven, we would be quasi-justified in murdering babies since we would be saving them from eternal damnation! We would certainly go to Hell for doing it, but we could save countless souls by it so it would be worth the self-sacrifice! Thankfully, God doesn't give us that information! We are commanded NOT to murder and we cannot fully know what happens to a soul after death (on this side of it all, anyway). Therefore, we must seek to perserve life as best we can and trust that the Judge of all the Earth will act justly on behalf of each individual in eternity, no matter what age.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I'm not sure there is a point to speculating on whether children were involved in these events of judgement. It seems God told the Israelites to destroy the inhabitants of Cannan, and specifically mentions not sparing the children. It is as you say, that when a person dies here, their soul remains: their consciousness shifts to a different "plane" of existence. So if their is no moral wrong in God shifting a person from this plane to another, then there is no need to speculate about whether God has moved children also.
Children can become corrupt also? Even killers... I don't understand why IP ia backing up children, I'm not saying all children are evil, but ; some children cases will baffle anyone. No one was found to be innocent/rightful in the cities. That means NO ONE. Or we can just stick that both Sodom and Gomorrah didn't allowed any children? 🤔😅 Like you said, they just go to another plain.
Then why there is a sea shells and sea creature fossils in the top of the Himalayas? Even in my country India, there is a story of flood too. Hindu deity named Vishnu took an avatar of fish named Matsya and warned a guy named Manu about the upcoming flood and told Manu to build a boat to survive the flood. But that flood was regional. That flood believed to be happened in India. Same story with different deity and people. I believe every region people experienced the same flood event and created their own. I believe when the Bible says the whole earth may be it literally meant the whole earth. Just my point. I would be happy for your answer Michael. Thanks
Andromeda that’s because the Himalayas were formed by two continents smashing into each other. The shorelines would kind of smush up rocks to get to the top of a mountain, and that’s how we get seashells up there.
Could it be possible that those numbers are also true? Though naturally not probable, could it be that God miraculously made them happen exactly as recorded in the Bible?
I’m not sure how you get around destroying two very large cities without children having been killed. I don’t think this is an indictment of God but perhaps a criticism of your analysis.
I interpret 40 as signifying God's hand in the events. I got this idea from the Mesopotamian's close association between 40 and the god Enki, obviously this doesn't mean that Enki had a hand in the events, but my reasoning is as follows. The Mesopotamians revered Enlil as their most high supreme deity until the Akkadians conquered the region and placed their own preferred god Marduk at the top of the pantheon, and demoted Enlil to a lowly god purely out of spite towards Enlil's priests who were vicious opponents of the Akkadians, and also reassigned many of Enlil and Enki's attributes to Marduk. It's natural to assume that incidents like this have happened many times, even before recorded history, and that it isn't Enki who was originally associated with the number 40 (Enki also plays a role similar to God in the Mesopotamian version of the flood story, incidentally). What I take from this is that the number 40 alludes to the presence or influence of some god, and if we're talking about the Bible then there's only one God this could be referring to.
I'm convinced that the Great Flood is the Younger Dryas Event that Bright Insight talks about and that the Civilization God wiped out was Atlantis in Mauritania
Excellent video, this actually releived a lot of doubt. More so than any confusion involving Genesis 1-5. Unrelated, so I understand if I can't get a response right away, but I am curious about how the concept of free will can be reconciled with the Messiah's sacrifice. Let me explain: Jesus and those around him all had free will, right? But Jesus's purpose was to bring about redemption via his crucifixion. But wouldn't there have been a chance that Judas just wouldn't have decided to betray him? Or some other circumstance that just lead to him dying of old age? I know God has divine foreknowledge, but it doesn't seem like Jesus 'set out' to get himself killed in my understanding, even if he told his disciples not to fight the Roman authorities. Maybe I'm finding contradiction where there isn't any, but any clarification would be great.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Watched it. So Jesus's death is the best outcome we got as a result of God working with free creatures in conjunction with maximizing the amount of 'good' in our universe? Given our circumstances, his death would have just been the natural result thereof?
@@renren1641 its all make believe dude dont take it too seriously. You can literally make up whatever you want and it will answer whatever problems you may find
@@whatwecalllife7034 Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. th-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/w-d-xo.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. Jkk
@@Navii-05 If we were in person, I would have stopped you at your beginning sentence. This is nothing I haven't already heard, nor is it clever or thought provoking, nor is it about "choosing" to accept it. I find nothing you said convincing or of any substance. I'm more curious as to why YOU find what you just said to be convincing.
May be even fish and a lot of marine life died due to the sudden and violent gushing of water from underground. We dont see any of those creatures from when there where dinosaurs, even under water.
There's never a reason to dispute the historical accounts in the Old Testament as time and time again archaeology and real science has proven them true. The Old Testament is always telling 2,3 and even 4 stories at the same time with symbolism, metaphors, prophecy or even using numbers. Just because you're enlightened enough to comprehend one of those stories, doesn't mean the other ones are also true at the same time.
I used to really struggle with this. But then I watched Game Of Thrones and it actually helped me understand (on an emotional level at least) why God sent the Flood. If humans did the things GOT characters did, I’d want to destroy the planet too.
Jesus also spent 40 days fasting. The numbers 3,7,40 are literally littered throughout the bible. The number 40 has also meant the beginning of something and the end of something Also astrology plays a large role in the outskirts of the bible. Taurus was the sign during Moses when the Israelites created a bull. Pisces the fish, was the sign when Christ was around and symbols of fish were used. It’s quite interesting
If this is true and only certain part of the middle East was flooded. Then once God reigns fiery judgment in the last days will that just being the middle East or will it be the whole world?
Does ip really believe that Christ will come again to judge all people or will he give some agnostic scolar insight to prove that it is only metaphorical?
The idea that the flood was regional is completely incompatible with the text in several ways. It says the waters prevailed above the highest mountains. That could not happen in a regional flood. That goes against the laws of physics. If it was a regional flood, the ark was completely unnecessary. All Noah needed to do was move to another location. The whole idea of a regional flood is compromising nonsense.
God used Noah to warn the people of the flood for nearly a century,but they laughed and refused to listen, and placed their children's lives in danger.
Murder is taking something that doesn't belong to you, i.e. another's life. But God created and owns everything, so it's not possible for him to steal anything, which also means he cannot murder/steal someone's life. He freely gives all life, and he can just as freely take it again, for whatever reason, whether guilty or innocent. So if God, through the flood, killed innocent babies and animals, it's not a problem, since, as the Sovereign Creator and outright owner of all things, he gives and takes life as he sees fit.
@Ebiegberi Adonkie That's not really the same thing; not even close, since we are talking about the Sovereign Creator of all things, and who is therefore the ultimate owner of all creatures and all things. When God freely gives life, it also comes with a condition, i.e., 'you are made in God's image, so don't trash God's image'. If you trash/deface God's image through sin/crime, then that dishonors God. The condition has been broken, as has been the original intended close relationship between the Giver/Creator and the benefactor. Now the Giver/Creator who is continuously upholding all life is still righteous and holy, but the benefactor is rotten/corrupted. The friendship is broken through the betrayal of the benefactor. The benefactor is the one who stole something, i.e. God's honour. The benefactor is the criminal, not the Giver. This is completely unrelated to one man giving another man money and then stealing it back.
I'm just asking, out of curiosity, if it was a regional flood, why would it matter for Noah to take animals aboard? If it was a regional flood, wouldn't it be silly to have to bother to take care of animals for at least over the course of several months (food, maintenance, water) if the flood was going to end and the animals of the surrounding area would just return once the waters die down? Like make the whole purpose of taking animals to repopulate the globe irrelevant. I'm just asking, unless if there might be another video IP does about the flood and Noah that addresses the question. Thanks for any responses.
If the flood was local, not global, why the animals? Why even the ark in the first place? If the flood was local, it’s area would have had to be one giant valley/very low spot, since the waters were above the highest peak. I’m pretty sure the water didn’t float in mid air, but flowed onwards.
Only 1 minute late. Your videos are very enlightening. Is it by any chance interpreted based around doctrines or just an unbiased exegesis? It seems the latter but just asking.
In an effort to put the God being described in the video in a more loving and merciful light, the narrator proclaimed the following: “...Since God is on all planes of existence, it is logically impossible for Him to murder someone the way a human might. Instead, he is just moving people from one plane of existence to another. So this is not murder, since God is not removing people from existence, but just placing them on another plane of existence...It is not immoral for God to end a life, because being on all planes of existence, he cannot kill like a human does when they commit murder...” Yeah, and if hell is real, then it is logically impossible for humans to torture other humans in the same way that God can torture them. And that’s because when humans die as a result of the torture from other humans, it is the end of their suffering. Whereas, on the other hand, when God tortures them (in their new plane of existence) they cannot die, and their suffering (on a scale beyond our imagining) will persist throughout all of eternity. So where’s the elevated morality in that? The point is that if God was truly capable of such an evil and heinous level of brutality (which, according to some believers, He is), then that would make the apologetics being offered in the video totally meaningless. _______
@@InspiringPhilosophy IP, I watched the video you linked to (plus others over time) and I truly appreciate and enjoy your extremely intelligent and reasoned approach to spirituality. However, it is utterly ridiculous to think that anyone who has physically died and awakened on the “other side” of the veil of death and has seen the truth of God’s existence, is, in turn, going to reject that truth. Furthermore, I suggest that God would no more punish one of his children after death for their actions in the darkness of his cosmic “womb” (the universe), than a human mother would punish her own child for the kicking and thrashing it did in her womb. Do you have a problem with me suggesting that God - the Creator of the trillions upon trillions of suns and planets in this universe - is infinitely more wondrous, loving, and forgiving that what the old mythology has made him out to be? _______
@@TheUltimateSeeds I think you're missing the point, being a Christian doesn't mean believing God exists. I don't think anyone is "waking up on the other side as you say and rejecting Gods existence" as you say. They probably do acknowledge Gods existence but obviously that's not enough to be at Gods right hand
@@SomeRandomDude000000 I was mostly referencing the content of the linked IP video. Did you watch it? It had a short little play (at around 17:37) that portrayed the afterlife as some kind of absurd situation where a human (who is allegedly stuck in hell) is basically no different than she was on earth. And even though she must surely understand that she has physically died (yet is still alive), she nonetheless (for some inexplicable reason) continues to reject the Being (God) who obviously made her very existence possible. It makes no sense. _______
I really enjoy your videos, but I have to disagree with your reasoning on God killing. "Thou shalt not murder" is different than "Thou shalt not kill". Murder is the taking of life out of selfish hateful motivation. This is why it is not a sin to kill out of self defense, or as a soldier in battle, or as an executioner carrying out the sentence of the state. It is even part of the Law of Moses to kill those found guilty of violating certain laws. This is why Jesus tells us "He who hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15). If we love our brother, we will not murder him. God cannot hate, therefor God cannot commit murder. Rather, God is just, and therefor anyone God kills is killed righteously under the fair judgement of the Law.
So the killing of innocent babies because they were born into a different ethnic group is OK with you, as long as it’s justified by the voices in your head?
@@curbroadshow no, that would still be murder. Non-murder killing would be somethilike self defense, or an executioner carrying out a court-ordered punishment under state law.
Well, if the flood was local, then why did Noah had to put animals inside the ark? Wouldn't there be enough animals in the nearby areas to repopulate the flooded area?
Well, you at least didn’t water that down. My brain is just flooding with knowledge now. You really H2owned those YECs. My thoughts about the flood used to be formless and void, but Inspiring Philosophy was hovering over the face of the deep. Now if someone objects to the flood, I can say I Noah guy to answer their questions. They might say “Water you talking about?” But I can just say “Splish Splash. Your opinion is trash.” Right now, I’m overflowing with bad puns. IP asked me to stop, but the Lord has blessed me with dad jokes and my cup runneth over. God Bless, IP.
Stories from around the world can't be used to say the flood was actually global. The Bible implies where the flood happened only Noah and his family survived which means you lose all your sources cause they died in the flood. (God could have called individuals from around the world and had them each build an ark but that is very speculative)If anything it is evidence of immigration out from Noah whether the flood was global or not.
I’ve personally never had a problem with the story of the flood, and I understood God’s moral reasons. However the arguments presented here add so many more reasons as to why this may have not been immoral at all..
Ebiegberi Adonkie Or I’m simply just rational and understand not everything is supposed to be taken at face value. Simply because you believe something is metaphorical doesn’t mean you’re confused...
Logically, God can not commit murder. He create and owns all life. He can give life, he can take it away. Murder only applies to humans because humans don't own life. They can only steal it through murder.
Saying that God cannot kill someone the way a human might is missing the point a bit I think. Regardless of whether or not that is true God is capable of enacting a far worse fate than mere death namely condemnation to hell. I'm in no way trying to argue he isnt justified in all that he does but removing the life from someone also removes the time and oportunity they had left to repent which I would argue is a much bigger deal regardless of their continued existance
He didn't need a reason because He had the power to be a better God. If he's happy to force death upon people, he could force nicer things, like a better appreciation of who he is. "Fine, you won't take my hints? I'll kill you because there's clearly nothing other than vagueness I can offer."
Viewer Discretion God doesn’t need to be better. He already is all that He needs to be. He is perfect and infinite eternal and wise Holy and true. We are mere humans who are finite in our thinking
RetroMan It’s less about thinking someone could do better than God, and more about using the brain that the so called God presumably gave us. It’s not rational to take tales that are 3,000 years old where humans believed lightning and floods were caused by angry Gods and read them as literal tales.
It sort of reminds me of the story of the destruction of Dwarka the inhabitants fell into wrong acts then the lord said that he would postpone the coming waters but sorrowfully knew they would not chang. The righteous women and children fled the city and then the city was consumed ocean killing the wicked. You can dive the ruins to this day if you go to india.
Some things i also think about is God gave us all a death penalty. We all die. Another thing is, when you learn of the affects of severe sin and abuse and how it becomes generational belief system that would go on and on unless intervention happens, if people choose to reject God, maybe it is mercy and not cruelty to end this. How much worse would the world be if Sodom and Gommorah had been allowed to keep going?
"Noah's flood was a special circumstance that didn't happen all the time" And yet regional floods have continued throughout history. In other words **they happen all the time**. Therefore Noah's flood had to be global. Not to mention the bible says the waters covered the tops of the highest mountains, so what contained the waters to allow them to cover the tops of the highest mountains?
The flood was not about killing families and children but saving them, which is why (as with Lot's family out of Soddom) the story focuses on a family that is saved, and violence and evil that is removed. In both cases, innocents are born out of an environment where they would die, this is family vs anti-family, innocence vs guilt. To interpret these accounts as being about the death of innocence is to miss the point made repeatedly through scripture. People do this out of a desire to deny that a society can lose all virtue. A denial of the standard being violated when judgement comes. God does not kill one family and save another, this isn't arbitrary favouritism. In this day and age, people cannot grasp that a culture can exist where innocence and family have no place. (even though some today are responsible for making such an environment)
@@berosi Lazy reply is lazy. Really, "educate yourself" is the go-to response of everyone who dislikes hearing opinions they don't like from modern liberals to flat-earthers to many atheist, to many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who can't stand hearing their interpretation of their own scriptures critiqued even from with their own faith groups. I'm sorry, but if your response to hearing an opinion you don't like is to just say "educate yourself" and leave it at that, you haven't revealed a superior intellect, only a closed-minded, arrogant and contemptuous attitude towards those you disagree with.
I will say that, as in the Old Testament, God does acknowledge that some forms of violence, such as state violence for the protection of the state and for dealing with certain types of crime, are acceptable and necessary, though of course, we should remember this is not a disregard for the value of human life, but an affirmation, since the state's duty is to preserve law, order, and safety for it's people, and this exercise of violence is a necessary component of that.
@@B.S._Lewis My good fellow, you should consider Christ as He is revealed in the Book of Revelation, where at the last he triumphs over evil and punishes human inequity, first by destroying his enemies at the final battle of Megiddo, then annihilating the devil and his apostate underlings after the millennium comes to a close. A great theme that appears over and over in the scriptures is that violence is necessitated by the existence of evil, which will inflict violence whether there is a force to stop it or no. The Lord clarifies that he is merciful to those who repent of their wickedness and self-willed madness, but if someone isn't willing to repent, he will at the last bring judgement down on their heads.
I would tend to believe the same event that caused noah to even need the ark also sunk atlantis, which is the eye of the sahara today. Giving you a list of potential floods to refer to like the greater drias climate catastrophe.
And answersingenesis' articles refuting the proposition that the Hebrew word "Aretz" should eb translated as "country" or land" instead of "earth" in the flood story. That interpretation would even contradict the New Testament.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I watched it, but it doesn't directly answer that question, just seems to indirectly do it. As far as I understood, you mean that God created an imperfect world for us to help Him in perfecting? I get where you are coming from, but wouldn't it be pretty much objectively better to create a perfect world (like Young-Earth Creationism claims) and not create a world where innocent people and animals experience suffering?
@@x-popone6817 I think you'll find the book or perhaps the film "The giver" to be rather interesting. Obviously the book pushes this point home the best, which is the fact that life without pain and suffering would therefore necessitate being bland and boring, without joy or pleasure because you lack the contrast for comparison. It makes a lot of sense too, evidenced by how people tend to live unhappy lives in this era despite all the glorious advancements we've made, if you took someone from the early 1900s and put him here and now he would be in pure Ecstasy 24/7 without a worry in the world. Yet people now get all worked up when their order is messed up.
1. Duration of the flood. "We cannot reconstruct how long the rain lasted or the length of the aftermath of the flood [...] . [ ... ] instead, it is designed to convey the massive scope of the cataclysm." That really seems like a convenient assumption. In no way you can conclude from having no information, that is was just written to paint a picture. Or you must assume that this passage was written by men who didnt know what exactly happened. Like a story, where some numbers are reoccuring but you cant really tell what exactly happened. Or the word were given by God, which leads to an very old argument, why does God speak in metaphors? Why does the reader of to figure out if it should be taken literal or metaphorical? There no guide to that, which is illogical for something that should dedicate your whole life. 2. "Since God is in all planes of existence it is logically impossible for Him to murder someone the way a human might" and "When a human kills someone they remove that person from their plane of existence" First, that would conclude that the person who was murdered by a human ends up in a different place, than the person killed by God, saying that there is more than "Hell and Heaven". And I dont think that this is actually what you are trying to say here but I dont know enough. It feels just odd that you come to such an easy conclusion, just because "God is on all planes", he is still ending Life and Im sure some of the victims of the flood wouldnt go to heaven. Elaborate if you care to explain. Second, the "Inception" analogy is completely false. In "Inception" the person who is killed in a dream, is not on the same plane of existence as the person who is killed in Real Life. But when were talking about God killing a person, that person is on the same plane of existence as the person murdered by another human. 3. Children. As I remember, a human being born is not innocent by definition of what happened to Adam and Steve. Since you brought up no passage that says that children and babies are innocent, there would be no evidence for your claim that "there were no children and babies". There probably were children and babies but because of Adam and Eve, they werent free from Sin. But, again, Im just questioning, I dont know everything and I could be false. 4. Just to poison your view on me and what I actually believe: Youre searching for convenient assumption to justify the flood. In our human definition, it would have been a genocide. But Gods not an evil massmurderer, so there must be an explanation. Youre searching for an answer you already have. Because if the flood was immoral, God would be immoral. Think about it and maybe start making excuses. I know youre educated on the bible and other texts. But youre not reading it with an open mind. Youre already having your truth, you just need the explanations. If something doesnt make sense, your gonna make it so.
So I’m curious, are you a Christian? Not super important but just a thought. Also, I think the only thing we need to consider when it comes to the moral a character of God is this; If we can show that God exists and that he resided Jesus from the dead, then we could reasonably say that since God is all knowing and all loving, Justice and wrath could naturally flow from his loving nature and therefore, the judgments he executed in the Old Testament were justified. Sometimes I never understood why others thought the flood was immoral. Ever since I was a kid, the idea of God flooding a region because of sin and violence made perfect sense. But of course you have the hardcore atheists who want to find anything that seems wrong in God’s moral nature, such as by invoking the possibility of infants being in the flood. To be honest, if the land itself was filled with violence and evil, it wouldn’t even be safe to raise a child there. And if this was something that was going to grieve God, then I think that he must’ve had a good reason to send the flood. I’m not going to assume that there were or were not any infants, but if you think about it, imagine a place worse than the worst city in the United States, imagine a place with no police, no laws, just nothing but lawlessness. I really doubt any family oriented people in that region would’ve stayed. Either they fled the region before they could be killed by others, or they were killed by others. Sometimes, I often question the moral character of God. I did it once and I asked him, and he said the he was the one who created heaven and earth, and he is just. Not only that, but when you really start to study the text and study the way humans are, it really starts to make sense why God would execute such judgments.
@@vibrantphilosophy Okay, at first, thanks for your comment! Really appreciate that! I wouldnt consider myself anything, Im not an atheist nor a christian or a believer. Im the one who doesnt know. BUT to be clear here, I know for myself the bible is a fantasy, theres no way that a book, written by man and more than 5k years old, holds the truth. And if it does, it goes beyond my understanding of the world and Im not sorry for not believing in it. I have a free will and if that caused me to be a "non-believer" so be it. But lets get down to the river. Youre saying that God should have had a reason to do it, right? As far as I understood you, youre aware that from a human perspective, Gods actions are questionable. But if you follow your teachings, God always has a reason for his actions right? But I wanna ask you a question: What if he doesnt? Why should an action, that is immoral to us, be moral because HE did it? Why should our earthly morals not apply to him? Why does it always have to be "God acts in mysterious ways" or "God has a plan"? If hes real and does harm to an innocent man (like Hiob or "Job"), why shouldnt we condemn God for that? Why should he be above our morals, if he created us in his imagine? Is it really okay to accept his wrath, just because hes God almighty? Ill thank you if you read this far. I hope youre not offended or something! From now, Im pushing my narrrative. Ill try to somewhat persuade you that Christianity is a fantasy. If youre not having that, stop reading :) Ill understand! But if you wanna read further, I have another question to you: What would happen if you stopped believing? Do you think youll go to hell? Thats it, I hope you have a great day! Wish you all the best!
I always thought it was funny how people say that they think God was unjust for killing off most of humanity, and then you see a bunch of people say that we deserve covid 19 and that humanity needs to be reset....
@@Zayindjejfj Why can't God decide to be clear and relatable rather than murderous? Why do so many call out and hear nothing back, but he has a storehouse of pain and pestilence to unleash whenever the whim strikes him?
@@6Churches Good questions. 1. God is not our celestial genie, showing up on our terms. You seek him, you lose your pride, your lose your self absorption. That is the whole point. He is also not murderous. You think (most likely as a materialist) that you have the moral high ground? You have no objective basis for morality. If the God of the bible exists, he is the absolute standard of good and morality, so there is no possible moral dillema there, it is just your opinion that he is evil because he is inconvenient to you. 2. I recommend you watch IP's video on "divine hiddenness" it will answer all your questions about that. 3. God doesn't just mess with earth and people like we are some sims in a videogame. We make our choices. The times where God intervened and made large displays were all in the old testament, before Jesus, largely to protect the Jews and allow their survival.
@@user-ps7ij6ge6d So if I look at your points 1 and 3, you're really saying God isnt a celestial genie to everyone, only when he picks favourites and only in select portions of human history when the whim strikes him. An unreliable genie, but nice if you find that he's decided to be on your side in a particular conflict.
if the world continued to think evil continually and if the world was filled with violence the children would grow up to be just like the adults. God is the sovereign king of all creation so the giver of life has the authority to take life any time he chooses. We give doctors the authority to end the life of a fetus 300,000 times a year but no one seems to throw a fit over that fact.But when God does it suddenly you have a problem. sometimes it becomes necessary to have an abortion when the mothers life is in danger.
so.... abortions have to happen sometimes when theres no other way around it but when a child dies you blame God as being evil but most abortions are unnecessary but are you opening your mouth against it??@@JamesDirette sheeeeesh!
abortions have to happen sometimes when it endangers the womens life sheeeeeeeesshh not just because someone is irresponsible and cant keep their legs closed sheeeeeesh so, i'm not for every abortion just because they didnt act responsibly. but theres clearly a time to save the mother. usually when people read about the flood if they are atheist they complain why did God kill those babies well, do you think its ok to abort babies when its not a threat to the mothers life?? if you do then you are a hypocrite.
Killing innocent children without the hope of rehabilitation is evil and lazy. He could have killed all adults a la angel of death in Pharoah and Moses story. Then had Noah or Himself teach the children.
@Anthony FawcettSo... God kills babies = good. Man kills babies = bad. Got it. But honestly by your reasoning a baby murderer is really just doing that baby a huge favor. Forget about all the good things that kid will get to experience and just focus on all the pain and suffering they're avoiding. Then they get to be with Jesus forever. Unless original sin is really a thing and they end up in baby purgatory😭.
@Anthony Fawcett What makes you think that God even thinks twice to send a child to Hell? Where do you think that those kids joyfully worshipping Baal with their parents go? Is this one of those made up "age of accountability" situations?
@Anthony Fawcett Then I am lost on your original comment. If a child suffers a painful drowning and it is possible that they are tortured for eternity after. I'm missing where the good for the child is...
@Anthony Fawcett Scratch that last comment, I didn't get your age of accountability response. But I don't know where you are getting that from biblically. I do know that the Bible says we are born with a sinful nature though. Also sacrifices were offered on behalf of sins that were unawaringly committed and I have heard many Christian prayers asking forgiveness of unknowingly committed sins.
The Great Flood or Great Reset was to wipe that phase of humanoids, many phases have existed, and many were half human half animal. The Tartarians from the last phase of humans were Half Human Half Goat. The Annunaki were half human half animal. Look up the great mud floods. Then look up Tartarians with horns.
IP, I appreciate your work, but the argumentation behind this was very poor. For one, you said that when God kills someone, He just transfers them to another plane of existence, while humans just kill for selfish and hateful reasons. First of all, while humans may mainly kill for immoral reasons, there are circumstances where killing is justified. Like war. God led several of them in the Bible. But more importantly, when someone kills someone else, how is that not transferring them to another plane of existence? Are we talking specifically about intentions? Moreover, God *is* killing. He's removing life from body. Which is fine because He was casting judgment in the flood narrative. I think that's all that needs to be said instead of trying to dance around that idea. Then you argued that it's possible children didn't die in the flood. You tell us to not put on the text what we think it says based on conjecture, yet your very argument that follows commits this exact error. You basically argue that the flood was local, was an isolated incident, and that because it was stated there were no righteous people in the land, it couldn't have included children because they have an age of accountability. You further supplement this with the idea that people who cared about their children would have left. If God can't "kill" and children aren't accountable for their sin, what's wrong with suggesting they died on you view? All it would mean is that they went straight to heaven, or a better plane of existence. Your second point about parents leaving is absolutely conjectural. There are no indications at all that people left. Your view requires more assumptions than just thinking, "Well, everybody died except Noah's family. It's likely there were children included."
You are reading way to much Into this. This is not a treaty on ethics, man. This is just a quick overview of the differences between god and humans and why it is not the same when God ends a life. If you kill their presence is gone from you and the same doesn’t apply to God, which changes the effect and thereby shed light on intent. If the intent will not get take them out of existence then is unlikely you would kill for immoral reasons. That was all I’m saying Yeah, I agree if children did die it would have been immoral, and with regards to children in the region I said in the video that was just a possibility, and I know it speculative because the text doesn’t say, but so is the opposite.
The question isn't is God immoral for killing everyone in the flood. The question is is God immoral for allowing sinners, including Noah, to live. In Genesis 18:25 Abraham asked God "will not the Judge of all the earth do right." If God is holy then Noah should die, Abraham should die, David should die. They should all die if God is a holy God. How can God justify sinners? After all, Proverbs 17:15 says that anyone who justifies the wicked is an abomination before the Lord. How can God be just if He justifies sinners. This is a huge problem and the answer is found in Jesus Christ. God took all Noah's sin, all Abraham's sin, all David's sin and placed it on the perfect Jesus and then He punished Jesus for our sin(Romans 5:8) Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath so we wouldn't have to. Now God is just and the Justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus(John 3:16).
InspiringPhilosophy Okay, I am confused with the death of the first-borns that was brought upon Egypt by God; it is contradictory to me that He would spare the children in the flood, but not the children of Egypt. Why is this? Or am I missing important context?
@InspiringPhilosophy I would like to know your opinion regarding an atheist argument against the divinity of Jesus Christ. The argument was that Jesus believed to be the Messiah and that he would return before the people of that time died, but he was wrong since christians are still waiting for Jesus' second coming. Matthew 24:34 , Matthew 16:27,28 and other verses where the apostles warn about the closeness of the end times are used in support of this argument.
While prophets in the Old Testament performed miracles, Jesus was different in who He said He was. Revelation 3:14 Jesus says he is the beginning of the creation of God. When Jesus returns to where he came from, which is heaven, he's basically the same as THE Angle of the Lord in the Old Testament. Jesus calls Himself THE Son of man, THE Son of God and John calls Him the manifestation of the invisible God. Scripture is clear there is only one God, but Jesus is the manifestation of God we can interact with. From the time a person here's about Jesus' second coming, it's less than 100 years and that would be an acceptable amount of time in our human reckoning of time. If Jesus hadn't delayed His return in order to get the very last soul he created that He found acceptable, the Atheist wouldn't even be able to ask the questions they ask, they never would have existed.
The historical Jesus may have never thought of himself as messiah. These verses have Jesus speaking to the Son of Man whom he expected to imminently intervene and overthrow the evil forces in the world. This clearly didn’t happen, and early Christians had to come up with a way of explaining why Jesus words didn’t come true. Enter Christian “theology”.
CDTV It’s not a matter of believing or not believing, it’s first a matter of reconstruction of the text. Modern scholars vary to some extent in this, but the Jesus you worship and the Jesus presented in the gospels is likely not the historical Jesus. To the extent you can get to the historical Jesus with what we do have, it’s clear there is development across the gospels as to what who his followers believed he was. Your conflating textual criticism with religious belief, and I’m not really interested in the latter.
CDTV Textual criticism makes perfect sense. My belief (or lack thereof) in Jesus is not predicated on if he thought he was messiah. You presume a book to be correct, damn scholarship and evidence that may say otherwise, and that’s dangerous.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
From my point of view, God is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. When God doesn’t enact judgment, people become angry at Him because of the evil in the world. But when God does enact judgement, people become angry at Him for doing so. Just a thought...
Good thing God isn't a respecter of persons...
If God didn't allow evil to exist in the world, wouldn't he have to kill all mankind?
@@clockguy2 then you wouldnt have free will and you will cry about it
@@clockguy2 people choose evil , its a choice
moataz yousry he wouldn’t cry about it because he doesn’t have free will lolol.
The Sodom and Gommorah comparison was brilliant
*Everyone in my house being dead silent*
Me: EVERYBODY SHUT UP, IP JUST RELEASED A NEW VIDEO
Lol
Lol my family is probably sick of me talking about what I learned from IP
😂
Be godly in your speech my friend. May Jesus lead you in your daily life more and more ✝️
"When a human kills someone they remove that person from their plane of existence for selfish and hateful reasons."
Mercy killings, self defense, or, perhaps even euthanasia may be different way of looking at human killing. Maybe it's a case by case basis. Intent may be the factor.
Of course intent is a factor. This isn’t a book on ethics. I’m briefly explaining the ontological differences between humans and God. Please don’t get nit-picky.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Hey Mike...
Are you going to do a flood video in reference to how you interpret the bible verses in genesis 9 when God makes the covenant to never again have the waters become a flood to destroy all life/flesh?
I thought it would surely be the elephant in the room... The biggest objection to a regional vs global flood.
I suspect your argument would involve the SCOPE/SIZE of the regional flood, since tsunamis happen regularly... So I have a few questions for you:
1. If the persian gulf is what was left after the waters receded (Which is roughly the size of the great lakes in North America), Then how big do you think Noah's flood originally was? Was it 2-3 times the size of the Persian gulf/ great lakes?
2. Can you point me towards scientific sources that you have for the flood in the persian gulf that a Christian like me can point non-believers towards?
3. Is there any scientific evidence of any flood in the past 10000 years being similar in size or bigger than the Persian gulf/ great lakes?
See my channel, th-cam.com/video/lLSyiJ9KUCo/w-d-xo.html
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
th-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/w-d-xo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
Hh
Why is it hateful and selfish to put a person out of existence?
The victim ceased to exist; he doesn’t think, he doesn’t remember, he doesn’t feel anything any longer
My struggle with the idea that even animals died in the flood isn’t the fact that God took their life. It’s the fact that this account seemed to have Him do it in such a painful, terrifying, and agonizing way for the animals.
Thank you IP. Your explanations about the problem of evil are the best!
YECs laugh at me, atheists laugh at me, but im still here subscribed to this amazing channel. God bless
I am too even though i am atheist myself. IP is the only christian channel i have found that has any valid points or even close to logical arguments for god and bible.
@@MiskaVlogi A video from Inspiring Philosophy form April this year says the flood amy have happened around 8000 bC, but the genealogies in The bible point to around 2500 BC and David, Solomon etc being alive around 1000 or 900 BC.
A video from Inspiring Philosophy form April this year says the flood amy have happened around 8000 bC, but the genealogies in The bible point to around 2500 BC and David, Solomon etc being alive around 1000 or 900 BC.
What do you think of darkmatter2525's video on the flood? And answersingenesis' articles refuting the proposition that the Hebrew word "Aretz" should be translated as "country" or land" instead of "earth" in the flood story. That interpretation would even contradict the New Testament.
TheVirusSoftware dude answers in genesis lies a lot not to be trusted and this is coming from aChristian also why would ip lie he gave very good evidence to support his view
Always I wait for you,
From India.
How is the christian community in India? a bit ago David from Acts 17 did a vid on persecution there... from your experience what have you seen or heard?
Blessings in the Name of Jesus from Florida in the US of A
@@AD-en5dq Very bad, brother.
In India there is caste system, and uppercaste Hindus systematically persecute Christians, Muslims, and dalits(lower caste).
While India can't be defined in one line. But India is a good nation as 90%indians are very peacefull and innocent persons, the remaining 10%are upper caste Hindus who are BJP(Indian so called nationalist party) supporters.
@@AD-en5dq th-cam.com/video/CaftUUHuewE/w-d-xo.html
This is how they persecute.but sadly its one case which got popularity but there are thousands of cases happening daily. Im a born hindu ,but i rejected Hinduism.Once I shared this thought on facebook ,I received threatening and mockery messages by persons whom i never knew.So its easy to imagine the amount of hatred in fanatic hindus.However i again remeined that india is a very diverse country so different places in india have very diffrent response,but overall anti christian sentiments is increasing by Bjp/upper caste support party.You can very easily google it.Indian Hindus who go to foreign nation like america ,european nations want secularism in other nation while they want hindu-nation in india.this is their hypocricy.
If that's you in the profile pic, you don't look Indian at all.
@@user-oj3gb8nh2q no it's not me in pic.
Can you do a video on the age of accountability?
I could listen to your videos all day!
All US Marines are Saved!
They Never reach the age of Accountability‼️ 😆
Great video, IP. I know I speak on behalf of many when saying that 'I enjoy this Genesis series'.
- May I ask btw, where do you get this beautiful and fitting background music?
Interesting. I am new to the channel, and I'm hearing more about a local flood, but I am convinced.
I find it on audioblocks and audio jungle
@@travist7777 check out Reasons to believe at Reasons.org/more and their regional flood model; it was very similar to this one pictured.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Hey IP...
Are you going to do a flood video in reference to how you interpret the bible verses in genesis 9 when God makes the rainbow covenant to never again have the waters become a flood to destroy all life/flesh?
I suspect it would involve the scope of the flood since tsunamis happen regularly... So I have a few questions for you:
1. If the persian gulf is what was left after the waters receded (Which is roughly the size of the great lakes in North America), Then how big do you think Noah's flood originally was? Was it 2-3 times the size of the Persian gulf/ great lakes?
2. Can you point me towards scientific sources that you have for the flood in the persian gulf that a Christian like me can point non-believers towards?
3. Is there any scientific evidence of any flood in the past 10000 years being bigger than the Persian gulf/ great lakes?
?
This just sounds like damage-control propped up by major textual interpolations.
3:36 - You state that God brought the flood with remose, but the passage you show on screen, Genesis 6, describes God’s remorse at having made humans, not at having caused the flood.
3:55 - “It is philosophically impossible for God to kill anyone the way a human kills someone.” (planes of existence etc.) - So, if I kill someone, they don’t go to Heaven or Hell, they just get annihilated? Can God *not* annihilate people? And if God moves them to Hell rather than annihilating them, isn't that worse? This needs a lot more fleshing out: it sounds like an ad-hoc excuse.
5:05 - “It is possible there were no children that died in the flood.” - Yeah, it’s also possible that the Teletubbies were there too, but I wouldn’t rest my argument on the mere possibility of that idea.
I realize that you go on to argue that Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the local area of the flood, would have had so much violence that children would not have been there, therefore, God didn’t kill any innocent children.
Problem is, there is no evidence for this at all (see below). Additionally, we have countless ongoing modern examples of children in war zones getting killed, so the idea that no children would have survived in such an area seems very flimsy.
5:26 - “… the flood was sent because of violence that was on the face of the land." - That's a nice idea, but Genesis 6:12, which you show on screen, simply says that, “…all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.” That doesn't sound like violence to me: by God’s standard, many things could be counted as "corruption", (blasphemy, not keeping the sabbath holy, etc.) so how is it that you read that passage and say, "Ah yes, it was violence, specifically, such extreme violence as the world had never seen"? That seems like a huge interpolation.
7:35 - Nowhere in the passages you cite does the word “violence”, or even the implication thereof, occur; these passages all refer to “sin”, and “corruption”, and “wickedness”, which, again, could be something as simple as blasphemy: you're reading it as "unimaginable violence" because it suits your conclusion, not because there's any actual evidence for it.
Your conclusion that the wickedness upon the land must have been unimaginable violence, and that there must have been no children there, seems disingenuous. The passages you cite say nothing of the sort, and the only reason anyone would come away from the text thinking this is because the person is desperate to justify God's actions, no matter what they are. It seems to me that the later Biblical authors you cite at 5:38, who obviously weren’t there, are just making up excuses for God the same way you are.
Now, is anything you argued impossible? No, I don' think so; you can reconcile just about anything, but this does not seem like an honest reading of the text at all.
1. I addressed that verse more in a previous video of this series: th-cam.com/video/2BzkoFpnAVk/w-d-xo.html
2. I didn't say that, it is about the action, and your aim. I am not denying intent is ay play, but if you were omnipresent and so if anyone you killed never left your presence it would certainly affect your reasons for killing, because you could not remove them like murder does for us. As for hell see my video on it: th-cam.com/video/tiYf6ITgWbk/w-d-xo.html
3. Remember, this section is a response to atheists who say an all good and omnipotent God should have found a better way? Well if accept an all good and omnipotent God should have found a better way and the flood was regional then there is a solution, which I provided. You cannot say God was evil for drowning children and when the text doesn't say that and he could have provided an opportunity for them to leave, like with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Of course there is no evidence, but there is also no evidence children drowned in the flood, so we all even now.
4. That is clearly hyperbole, as explained in a previous video: th-cam.com/video/Q07gxxbggJs/w-d-xo.html
5. Then read the whole chapter, that was just a sample:
Genesis 6:11 - Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
Genesis 6:13, - And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
"Your conclusion that the wickedness upon the land must have been unimaginable violence, and that there must have been no children there, seems disingenuous. The passages you cite say nothing of the so"
- What verse says children drowned?
1. In that video, you specifically argued that God did *not* feel remorse, since this would imply that God made a mistake. You went on to say that it was actually God's sense of justice. So why would God feel any "sadness" over causing the flood? It seems impossible that God could have had any kind of internal conflict about this. Thus, I don't see how the flood could possibly have been brought "with remorse" as you put it.
2. At best, this simply gives God one less bad reason to inflict this harm on someone; it doesn't make his actual reason necessarily good, and it doesn't change the harm itself. He's still damaging the victim in the same way that *I* would if *I* were to kill someone. The fact that the killer didn't do it simply so he could remove the victim from his own presence doesn't make the victim feel any better about losing connection with his family and his life, and it doesn't automatically make the killer's actions noble. Heck, I could imagine a person going around lethally stabbing people, even if he knew that those people would come back to life the next day: some people just like harming others, and so too, it seems, does God.
And do you honestly think the victim's situation is made better by the idea that their killer will be there to greet them on the other side? If anything, that would almost make it *worse*.
2.5. Okay, same basic question: why wouldn't God simply annihilate people who are set to be "locked in" to their Hell? Heck, why would he allow this fire to burn *forever* in the first place? That seems like a major design flaw. As an engineer, I can tell you that this kind of failure mode would be unacceptable in any design. And if I were addicted to something that was destroying me, I would trust my family to stage an intervention, but apparently, God is not as loving as my human family.
3. I applaud your literary creativity in trying to square a loving God with the fact that he killed people, and as I said, there's nothing technically illogical about your interpretation, but this does not seem like an honest reading of the text at all: the text says that "the Earth" was corrupt, and that, "...I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created..." (which would seem to be all of them) (Genesis 6:7). If this were a critical reading question on a test, the correct answer would be that God wiped out all of humanity except for Noah's family: that's what the story is about. 36/36 ACT material right there.
In my high school English classes, I always thought about how funny it would be to write an essay which argued that the book we were studying was about obesity, or pornography, or something seemingly unrelated to the text itself, and I could have done it: it would have been so easy with some creative interpretation and textual interpolation. I thought about doing this because, honestly, this seemed to be par for the course in those classes: Jane Eyre's red curtains symbolized... uh, fear, or something, yeah, and that ties into all this other stuff because, well, wouldn't that be cool? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm seeing here, but worse: never mind what the text actually says, let's look at what it *doesn't* say and believe that instead (see the rest of my comment below for the continuation of this overall idea).
4. I understand, for example, that the phrase "God is my rock" cannot literally mean that God is a boulder somewhere, but only because the context makes this clear, and perhaps more importantly, because the authors at the time certainly didn't believe this about God. However, without these kinds of clear indicators, it seems to me that what you are choosing to call "hyperbole" is not based on the text itself, or even on the contemporary theology. Rather, your choice of what is and isn't figurative language seems to be based on what you a-priori believe: ancient Jews *did* believe, for example, that the firmament physically existed, and that it had windows to let water in as rain. The only reason you could possibly glean a different meaning from these passages is because you already know that they are factually wrong, so now you're doing damage control instead of conceding that the author was mistaken.
5. Ah, I see, I will concede that it does specifically say "violence" in addition to corruption. Good point, although I maintain that it does not paint the kind of war-zone picture you do.
6. "What verse says children drowned?" Uh, most of Genesis 6? Which talks about the Earth being filled with humans who he will blot out? That's where I get the idea. Besides, what verse says that it was only a *local* flood? And what verse says that any *women* drowned? (maybe I've got some kind of feminist ideology to save, idk). Once again, it sounds like you're selectively hand-waving away the bad stuff and interpolating any desired good stuff instead of actually reading the words in their literary and historical context.
This is the exact same thing moderate Muslims do when confronted with verses about Jihad and the status of infidels. If you're willing to label anything as hyperbole or symbolic, or to interpolate some additional information or some higher purpose, then you could even interpret Mein Kampf to be about peace and love, which you and I would both say is a gross misunderstanding of the text.
My point is this: even if there *was* a verse which said that children were drowned, you would be perfectly happy to wrangle up some kind of excuse for why it was okay, or why it's just a metaphor, as I'm sure you do with the slaughter of the *Canaanite* children. You wouldn't be technically wrong if you chose to do this, but by allowing this level of interpolation and hand-waving, you have made your position completely unfalsifiable, and almost completely detached from the text itself; everything in the text that you disagree with *must* have been hyperbole or metaphor or something. You conclude this, not because the text actually indicates this, but because you simply cannot bring yourself to say that the Bible got some things wrong.
@@VenaloidMind if I throw my hat in the ring for some of the questions?
Why do bad things happen to good people ? It only happened once and He forgave them.
Jesus, the only true human, because we are created in His image.
Because people have misconceptions about "good people"
Being good should not be defined by human, God who define good and bad, first we should know what the right religion after that we can understand life
@@muhanadtaifour4241 right religion is Jesus Christ.
"Why do bad things happen to good people ? It only happened once and He forgave them." Who forgave whom? God forgave the good people or the good people forgave God?
1. "God forgave the good people": Why? They didnt do bad right? Whats there to forgive? Why did the bad things happen to them?
2. "The good people forgave God": How can you forgive God? As far as I know, humans are in no place to do that.
So what are you exactly trying to say here?
@@niedermitderjagd1968 The "good people" didn't forgive God. He means Jesus by "good people"
Love your videos on genesis 7, hopefully one by one..one day you will complete the entire bible
If you ever come back to Pennsylvania I want to buy you a drink and just pick your brain. Never even thought of this.
I LOVE that he boldly defended "double-texting" against that stupid notion that you shouldnt double text. go sir speak the truth!
Amen, I appreciate your video's to put the text in its context of where it came from. This reminds me of Irving Finkel's correction on some people that think the text implies every single animal we have these days had to of been on the ark. He takes the approach of its region and the animals in that region and not the Global flood narrative. I appreciate you and Ben Stanhope's video's. Keep all the hard work up :)
Well done IP!! Super graphics and cool video. God bless!!
Well done, very fine presentation. Keep up the good work IP!
The saints also say that many who died could have repented beforehand, so losing their life is nothing compared to the glory they gain.
Wow, I have never heard the argument about God and killing someone and that not being immoral. Really interesting idea.
Rather than whether moral or immoral, ask yourself if it is brutal, cruel, painful, terrorising... and then ask yourself why an omnipotent being resorts to such methods when every other method is still available to them? Why don't we let teachers and politicians use these methods on their students/civilians?
Viewer Discretion here’s the issue with your position. Asking whether something is brutal, terrorizing, etc, only matters in the context of morality. Also, other methods being available doesn’t matter if the method has a specific purpose and has specific effects after the fact.
@@6Churches there is a difference between "God" and a human . God has sovereignty to do whatever he wants. God would have destroyed all the humans because of sin but he extended grace and let people live the age they live some 100 years some 50 years some 40 years , some 1 year ,some 2 year etc it has to deal with God's decree and God's right over how a person will die and when will he die through natural or manual causes. God is not a human that he has to answer some one . God has the right to determine the age of the Human.
Hhhut Hhhjj your god sounds just like any other despicable dictator then
@@margaretbarrett6087 And your intellect to resort to that opinion came from him. So yeah i guess you're very smart
If no babies survived the violence of that culture, how did any babies grow up to be the adults that cause the violence?
The ripple effect I suppose.looking at what has become of the world I we can safely say the adults today were children in the past. Also inocent back then.even Adolf was a innnocent child at some point.imagine Germany won the war and continued with their genocide campaign ...what type of adult would the next generation of children grown up to be?
So by IP's rationale... Jesus was just relocated for your sins! Makes perfect sense.
I liked the Inception analogy. Mainly because I loved the movie.
I would have preferred to top it off with The Resurrection, God will Resurrect every individual who ever died.
Ok, you liked not because it made any senses.. but cuz it's a cool movie. Ok
I have a question and a suggestion. Where did you take all those footage that you put in your videos? Also what programs did you use for making of this videos?
And the suggestion would be to make a video answering this questions so that you or us post a link when that question pops up, so that you don't have to write every time this sort of question are asked.
It doesn't really seem to stand to reason that God would command Noah to build a giant boat when he could just say "move 300 miles this way to avoid the flood". I think either the flood was completely global or it was completely symbolic.
Well, the Bible seems to indicate that the Flood was completely global, and not symbolic.
do you know how long it would take to travel 300 miles ☠️
I feel like you need another video going deeper in explaining how God killing is ontologically different than man killing
Yes, because the thesis is not clear at all from this attempt to do so.
Especially the conflict between God respecting people's free will (won't tell them directly about his love) but then murdering them by the thousands (very happy to tell them directly about his retribution).
@@6Churches What do you think counts as him telling them directly about his love?
because I'm of the position he did
God rarely follows his own advice...
@@6Churches what would be on par with direct killing?
I agree. I hope he addresses capital punishment and stuff on the human side
Excellent work IP
Great work👏🏻🙏
What is InspiringPhilisophy's take on where the different races come from if the great flood was only regional? Or was it supposed to take place before ancient humanity had spread beyond that region? If this has been discussed in another video, kindly direct me there. Thanks!
Love IP, but I just don’t think that a regional flood is at all biblical. Very open to discussion, but why all the animals and the big ark (wouldn’t there be plenty of animals left in the rest of the world), why couldn’t they (Noah and family) just have moved to a safer place away from the flood, and why all the worldwide flood accounts? Also, does the Bible not say how the rest of humanity came from just Noah’s family after the flood? If it was regional, then there were plenty of families everywhere else and no need for a restart. Thoughts??
Great video IP.
Imagine being on an ark in the middle of the ocean with sabre-toothed cats and other vicious stone-age animals.
I think you have your eras mixed up
@Μην Πατήσεις Humans being around at the same time as mammoths does not mean Noah was around at the same time as mammoths.
@@SomeRandomDude000000 According to the studies IP has, the flood happened between 13000 to 8500 years ago so things like the T-Rex would obviously be long dead but the saber-tooth cat and other ice age era animals could have been around.
@@Menzobarrenza Mammoths lives on Earth as recent as 2000 years ago. Although, they were highly-inbred and on an extrememly Northern island of Russia 🤣🤣🤣
Murder is murder. Not calling evil (murder, genocide, violence, destruction, etc.) evil, leads to confusion and that naturally makes man call evil good, and good evil to his greatest woe. Now, keeping that in mind, the Bible (by the way it has been written) clearly desplays such confusion (from the time of the Fall to the time of Jesus). So as one sinner reads the Bible, he/she is facing himself/herself. This does not mean though that the Bible teaches that the readers have to think this way.
as some theologians have argued, I think that God doesn't bring the flood directly or any calamity for that matter. Rather God merely leaves a sinful nation or group and the resulting horror is just a consequence of the lack of God's presence
Why did the Greeks flourish as much as they did without God? Or the Japanese, or the Romans.
@@user-oj3gb8nh2q who says they were without God? And they flourished at some points and at some they didn't. I think you are confusing God ''being'' with some people and people having theological knowledge about God
Why do bad things happen to devout Christians then? Doesn't that mean that he's abandoned them despite them doing his best to follow his commandments?
He doesn't seem very nice if that's the case.
Ah yes!
Nothing better on a Saturday afternoon then watching IP’s vids
Just because something is symbolic, doesn't mean it's not literal. Synchronicity.
Inspiringphilosophy back at it again!
with the white vans!
What about Jack and the beanstalk and Snow white and the seven dwarfs?
I really love this channel and the great content!!! I've learned so much and been pressed to consider mind-opening information!! I love how cool ideas are kicked around, and I always will! I don't always agree on all the ideas, of course. In this video, I totally agree that God is on a different plane than us; He is outside time&space (has worlds outside ours) and He is perfectly good and just (not something we can fathom in our sinful condition.) My main points of difference are as follows: First, it just HAD to be a worldwide flood because it is described as such! One simply reading will NOT assume it was regional because it is expressly stating every living thing that walked on the earth and breathed air that was not in the Ark got dead. Tons of geographical evidence and a cornucopia of historical legends agree to a worldwide flood! Second, if God is not unjust to kill innocent babies, and we can agree, many innocent babies die and God is still not unjust, then He was NOT unjust to destroy such a vast quantity of humanity, including children and babies. It is improbable that God should wait till there are no babies or children being alive or born before destroying even a region if He chose to. We already know "innocent" people, babies and children die in all manner of horrifying natural disasters or from diseases and God obviously allows such things to happen and yet He remains perfectly just. So, no need to rationalize God's killing babies. If anything, as in the case of destoying those who worshiped Molach (who burned their babies in the arms of blazing bronze statues), it was God's mercy to remove the children from one plane of existence to perhaps, we can only surmise, an existence into His blessed eternal presence. As for assuming the age of innocence: we are not in God's place to judge where these late babies and children go. If we knew, in certainty, all babies go to Heaven, we would be quasi-justified in murdering babies since we would be saving them from eternal damnation! We would certainly go to Hell for doing it, but we could save countless souls by it so it would be worth the self-sacrifice! Thankfully, God doesn't give us that information! We are commanded NOT to murder and we cannot fully know what happens to a soul after death (on this side of it all, anyway). Therefore, we must seek to perserve life as best we can and trust that the Judge of all the Earth will act justly on behalf of each individual in eternity, no matter what age.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I'm not sure there is a point to speculating on whether children were involved in these events of judgement. It seems God told the Israelites to destroy the inhabitants of Cannan, and specifically mentions not sparing the children. It is as you say, that when a person dies here, their soul remains: their consciousness shifts to a different "plane" of existence. So if their is no moral wrong in God shifting a person from this plane to another, then there is no need to speculate about whether God has moved children also.
Children can become corrupt also?
Even killers... I don't understand why IP ia backing up children, I'm not saying all children are evil, but ; some children cases will baffle anyone.
No one was found to be innocent/rightful in the cities. That means NO ONE. Or we can just stick that both Sodom and Gomorrah didn't allowed any children? 🤔😅
Like you said, they just go to another plain.
Then why there is a sea shells and sea creature fossils in the top of the Himalayas? Even in my country India, there is a story of flood too. Hindu deity named Vishnu took an avatar of fish named Matsya and warned a guy named Manu about the upcoming flood and told Manu to build a boat to survive the flood. But that flood was regional. That flood believed to be happened in India. Same story with different deity and people. I believe every region people experienced the same flood event and created their own. I believe when the Bible says the whole earth may be it literally meant the whole earth. Just my point. I would be happy for your answer Michael. Thanks
Andromeda that’s because the Himalayas were formed by two continents smashing into each other. The shorelines would kind of smush up rocks to get to the top of a mountain, and that’s how we get seashells up there.
you should do a video on Isaiah and Daniel regarding authorship/dating! thanks for the hard work IP
Very Educative God bless
Could it be possible that those numbers are also true? Though naturally not probable, could it be that God miraculously made them happen exactly as recorded in the Bible?
Wait the floods was not all over the earth ? Just near Saudi Arabia? How did you come to that
Glad to hear that God would never drown babies... At least not until the 2004 tsunami that wiped out 227,000 people in a day.
what verse says every natural disaster was caused by God?
He is the creator
Amazing video like always
I’m not sure how you get around destroying two very large cities without children having been killed. I don’t think this is an indictment of God but perhaps a criticism of your analysis.
The homosexual cities? Think about it.
it is an indictment of God
I interpret 40 as signifying God's hand in the events. I got this idea from the Mesopotamian's close association between 40 and the god Enki, obviously this doesn't mean that Enki had a hand in the events, but my reasoning is as follows. The Mesopotamians revered Enlil as their most high supreme deity until the Akkadians conquered the region and placed their own preferred god Marduk at the top of the pantheon, and demoted Enlil to a lowly god purely out of spite towards Enlil's priests who were vicious opponents of the Akkadians, and also reassigned many of Enlil and Enki's attributes to Marduk. It's natural to assume that incidents like this have happened many times, even before recorded history, and that it isn't Enki who was originally associated with the number 40 (Enki also plays a role similar to God in the Mesopotamian version of the flood story, incidentally). What I take from this is that the number 40 alludes to the presence or influence of some god, and if we're talking about the Bible then there's only one God this could be referring to.
I'm convinced that the Great Flood is the Younger Dryas Event that Bright Insight talks about and that the Civilization God wiped out was Atlantis in Mauritania
Excellent video, this actually releived a lot of doubt. More so than any confusion involving Genesis 1-5.
Unrelated, so I understand if I can't get a response right away, but I am curious about how the concept of free will can be reconciled with the Messiah's sacrifice.
Let me explain: Jesus and those around him all had free will, right? But Jesus's purpose was to bring about redemption via his crucifixion. But wouldn't there have been a chance that Judas just wouldn't have decided to betray him? Or some other circumstance that just lead to him dying of old age? I know God has divine foreknowledge, but it doesn't seem like Jesus 'set out' to get himself killed in my understanding, even if he told his disciples not to fight the Roman authorities. Maybe I'm finding contradiction where there isn't any, but any clarification would be great.
Given molinism, there were other possibilities for the death of Jesus to happen: th-cam.com/video/lqpKKS9BilA/w-d-xo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy Watched it. So Jesus's death is the best outcome we got as a result of God working with free creatures in conjunction with maximizing the amount of 'good' in our universe? Given our circumstances, his death would have just been the natural result thereof?
@@renren1641 its all make believe dude dont take it too seriously. You can literally make up whatever you want and it will answer whatever problems you may find
@@whatwecalllife7034 Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
th-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/w-d-xo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
Jkk
@@Navii-05 If we were in person, I would have stopped you at your beginning sentence.
This is nothing I haven't already heard, nor is it clever or thought provoking, nor is it about "choosing" to accept it. I find nothing you said convincing or of any substance.
I'm more curious as to why YOU find what you just said to be convincing.
What about the fish? Those little finned bastards were having the time of their lives
May be even fish and a lot of marine life died due to the sudden and violent gushing of water from underground. We dont see any of those creatures from when there where dinosaurs, even under water.
There's never a reason to dispute the historical accounts in the Old Testament as time and time again archaeology and real science has proven them true. The Old Testament is always telling 2,3 and even 4 stories at the same time with symbolism, metaphors, prophecy or even using numbers. Just because you're enlightened enough to comprehend one of those stories, doesn't mean the other ones are also true at the same time.
I used to really struggle with this. But then I watched Game Of Thrones and it actually helped me understand (on an emotional level at least) why God sent the Flood. If humans did the things GOT characters did, I’d want to destroy the planet too.
7:45 good message, this logic should be applied to all text of the Bible
Jesus also spent 40 days fasting.
The numbers 3,7,40 are literally littered throughout the bible.
The number 40 has also meant the beginning of something and the end of something
Also astrology plays a large role in the outskirts of the bible. Taurus was the sign during Moses when the Israelites created a bull.
Pisces the fish, was the sign when Christ was around and symbols of fish were used.
It’s quite interesting
And we are now moving out of the age of Pisces into the more enlightened age of Aquarius.
If this is true and only certain part of the middle East was flooded.
Then once God reigns fiery judgment in the last days will that just being the middle East or will it be the whole world?
Does ip really believe that Christ will come again to judge all people or will he give some agnostic scolar insight to prove that it is only metaphorical?
The idea that the flood was regional is completely incompatible with the text in several ways. It says the waters prevailed above the highest mountains. That could not happen in a regional flood. That goes against the laws of physics. If it was a regional flood, the ark was completely unnecessary. All Noah needed to do was move to another location. The whole idea of a regional flood is compromising nonsense.
@@dooglitas IP has made videos on the topic.
@@dooglitas IP has covered that here:
th-cam.com/video/Q07gxxbggJs/w-d-xo.html
It's definitely worth your time.
@@dooglitas True, but where did the water go? If you can magic-away oceans of water, you can magically border your flood with regional walls.
Thanks for asking obvious questions and remembering God is good.
God used Noah to warn the people of the flood for nearly a century,but they laughed and refused to listen, and placed their children's lives in danger.
Murder is taking something that doesn't belong to you, i.e. another's life. But God created and owns everything, so it's not possible for him to steal anything, which also means he cannot murder/steal someone's life.
He freely gives all life, and he can just as freely take it again, for whatever reason, whether guilty or innocent.
So if God, through the flood, killed innocent babies and animals, it's not a problem, since, as the Sovereign Creator and outright owner of all things, he gives and takes life as he sees fit.
@Ebiegberi Adonkie That's not really the same thing; not even close, since we are talking about the Sovereign Creator of all things, and who is therefore the ultimate owner of all creatures and all things.
When God freely gives life, it also comes with a condition, i.e., 'you are made in God's image, so don't trash God's image'. If you trash/deface God's image through sin/crime, then that dishonors God. The condition has been broken, as has been the original intended close relationship between the Giver/Creator and the benefactor.
Now the Giver/Creator who is continuously upholding all life is still righteous and holy, but the benefactor is rotten/corrupted. The friendship is broken through the betrayal of the benefactor. The benefactor is the one who stole something, i.e. God's honour. The benefactor is the criminal, not the Giver.
This is completely unrelated to one man giving another man money and then stealing it back.
I'm just asking, out of curiosity, if it was a regional flood, why would it matter for Noah to take animals aboard? If it was a regional flood, wouldn't it be silly to have to bother to take care of animals for at least over the course of several months (food, maintenance, water) if the flood was going to end and the animals of the surrounding area would just return once the waters die down? Like make the whole purpose of taking animals to repopulate the globe irrelevant. I'm just asking, unless if there might be another video IP does about the flood and Noah that addresses the question. Thanks for any responses.
I believe he does so in the previous video in the series
if the flood was local, why didn't God tell Noah to travel out of the local area, instead of having him spend 120 years building an ark?
If the flood was local, not global, why the animals? Why even the ark in the first place? If the flood was local, it’s area would have had to be one giant valley/very low spot, since the waters were above the highest peak. I’m pretty sure the water didn’t float in mid air, but flowed onwards.
Only 1 minute late. Your videos are very enlightening. Is it by any chance interpreted based around doctrines or just an unbiased exegesis? It seems the latter but just asking.
Absolutely revolting that this is among the depths to which one will stoop to defend their beliefs.
Also why do some of you people believe this crap?
That's Christianity for u dear
In an effort to put the God being described in the video in a more loving and merciful light, the narrator proclaimed the following:
“...Since God is on all planes of existence, it is logically impossible for Him to murder someone the way a human might. Instead, he is just moving people from one plane of existence to another. So this is not murder, since God is not removing people from existence, but just placing them on another plane of existence...It is not immoral for God to end a life, because being on all planes of existence, he cannot kill like a human does when they commit murder...”
Yeah, and if hell is real, then it is logically impossible for humans to torture other humans in the same way that God can torture them. And that’s because when humans die as a result of the torture from other humans, it is the end of their suffering. Whereas, on the other hand, when God tortures them (in their new plane of existence) they cannot die, and their suffering (on a scale beyond our imagining) will persist throughout all of eternity.
So where’s the elevated morality in that?
The point is that if God was truly capable of such an evil and heinous level of brutality (which, according to some believers, He is), then that would make the apologetics being offered in the video totally meaningless.
_______
See: th-cam.com/video/tiYf6ITgWbk/w-d-xo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy
IP, I watched the video you linked to (plus others over time) and I truly appreciate and enjoy your extremely intelligent and reasoned approach to spirituality.
However, it is utterly ridiculous to think that anyone who has physically died and awakened on the “other side” of the veil of death and has seen the truth of God’s existence, is, in turn, going to reject that truth.
Furthermore, I suggest that God would no more punish one of his children after death for their actions in the darkness of his cosmic “womb” (the universe), than a human mother would punish her own child for the kicking and thrashing it did in her womb.
Do you have a problem with me suggesting that God - the Creator of the trillions upon trillions of suns and planets in this universe - is infinitely more wondrous, loving, and forgiving that what the old mythology has made him out to be?
_______
@@TheUltimateSeeds I think you're missing the point, being a Christian doesn't mean believing God exists.
I don't think anyone is "waking up on the other side as you say and rejecting Gods existence" as you say. They probably do acknowledge Gods existence but obviously that's not enough to be at Gods right hand
@@SomeRandomDude000000
I was mostly referencing the content of the linked IP video. Did you watch it? It had a short little play (at around 17:37) that portrayed the afterlife as some kind of absurd situation where a human (who is allegedly stuck in hell) is basically no different than she was on earth. And even though she must surely understand that she has physically died (yet is still alive), she nonetheless (for some inexplicable reason) continues to reject the Being (God) who obviously made her very existence possible.
It makes no sense.
_______
I really enjoy your videos, but I have to disagree with your reasoning on God killing. "Thou shalt not murder" is different than "Thou shalt not kill". Murder is the taking of life out of selfish hateful motivation. This is why it is not a sin to kill out of self defense, or as a soldier in battle, or as an executioner carrying out the sentence of the state. It is even part of the Law of Moses to kill those found guilty of violating certain laws. This is why Jesus tells us "He who hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15). If we love our brother, we will not murder him. God cannot hate, therefor God cannot commit murder. Rather, God is just, and therefor anyone God kills is killed righteously under the fair judgement of the Law.
So the killing of innocent babies because they were born into a different ethnic group is OK with you, as long as it’s justified by the voices in your head?
@@curbroadshow no, that would still be murder. Non-murder killing would be somethilike self defense, or an executioner carrying out a court-ordered punishment under state law.
@@curbroadshow False assumption.
@@patrickdixon7202 What is?
@@curbroadshow Yours.
Well, if the flood was local, then why did Noah had to put animals inside the ark? Wouldn't there be enough animals in the nearby areas to repopulate the flooded area?
The animals needed to be on the ark so God had fresh live animals to be sacrificed to him as he found the smell to be a soothing aroma!
@@dane947 But why one pair of every specie? Why not just a few pairs of birds, sheep and cattle?
Welington Weiss He was hungry.
Watch the rest of the series, because I literally already addressed this in Genesis 6b!
Well, you at least didn’t water that down. My brain is just flooding with knowledge now. You really H2owned those YECs. My thoughts about the flood used to be formless and void, but Inspiring Philosophy was hovering over the face of the deep. Now if someone objects to the flood, I can say I Noah guy to answer their questions. They might say “Water you talking about?” But I can just say “Splish Splash. Your opinion is trash.” Right now, I’m overflowing with bad puns. IP asked me to stop, but the Lord has blessed me with dad jokes and my cup runneth over. God Bless, IP.
2 of each kind
I covered that in genesis 6b: th-cam.com/video/2BzkoFpnAVk/w-d-xo.html
It makes no sense why people make this argument. I mean I can understand if the flood was global but it wasn't...
@tsimahei Ever heard of imagination?
Stories from around the world can't be used to say the flood was actually global. The Bible implies where the flood happened only Noah and his family survived which means you lose all your sources cause they died in the flood. (God could have called individuals from around the world and had them each build an ark but that is very speculative)If anything it is evidence of immigration out from Noah whether the flood was global or not.
According to the Bible, it was global.
I’ve personally never had a problem with the story of the flood, and I understood God’s moral reasons.
However the arguments presented here add so many more reasons as to why this may have not been immoral at all..
Ebiegberi Adonkie When did i say the story wasn’t clear? shut up and read my comment before replying
Ebiegberi Adonkie I guess you take every the bible says literally and don’t understand metaphors and allegories, I guess it’s you who’s delusional
Ebiegberi Adonkie Or I’m simply just rational and understand not everything is supposed to be taken at face value.
Simply because you believe something is metaphorical doesn’t mean you’re confused...
Logically, God can not commit murder. He create and owns all life. He can give life, he can take it away. Murder only applies to humans because humans don't own life. They can only steal it through murder.
Saying that God cannot kill someone the way a human might is missing the point a bit I think. Regardless of whether or not that is true God is capable of enacting a far worse fate than mere death namely condemnation to hell. I'm in no way trying to argue he isnt justified in all that he does but removing the life from someone also removes the time and oportunity they had left to repent which I would argue is a much bigger deal regardless of their continued existance
The Word "Murder" means killing without a reason
God had a reason to destroy the people if you knew what was going on in those days
He didn't need a reason because He had the power to be a better God. If he's happy to force death upon people, he could force nicer things, like a better appreciation of who he is.
"Fine, you won't take my hints? I'll kill you because there's clearly nothing other than vagueness I can offer."
Viewer Discretion God created life, he can take life by his own will.
Viewer Discretion God doesn’t need to be better. He already is all that He needs to be. He is perfect and infinite eternal and wise Holy and true. We are mere humans who are finite in our thinking
RetroMan It’s less about thinking someone could do better than God, and more about using the brain that the so called God presumably gave us. It’s not rational to take tales that are 3,000 years old where humans believed lightning and floods were caused by angry Gods and read them as literal tales.
I'm fairly sure tons of humans who murder have a reason for doing so... Where are you getting your definition of murder?
It sort of reminds me of the story of the destruction of Dwarka the inhabitants fell into wrong acts then the lord said that he would postpone the coming waters but sorrowfully knew they would not chang. The righteous women and children fled the city and then the city was consumed ocean killing the wicked. You can dive the ruins to this day if you go to india.
Wow....amazing how you can be so brilliant in some presentations.....and then.
This video literally refuted 99% of atheists objections to the story of Noah's Ark
Sorry, it really didn't. You can search through the comments if you'd like to find great objections and counter-arguments.
Sudo Hyde I did you just don’t like the answer to the question. Doesn’t mean that this video didn’t answer the question.
Sudo Hyde Yea the comment section on youtube is where I obtain my wisdom.
@@bosspaw4028 better than an university
100% . but people who are 100% skeptical will "refute" it anyway.
Some things i also think about is God gave us all a death penalty. We all die. Another thing is, when you learn of the affects of severe sin and abuse and how it becomes generational belief system that would go on and on unless intervention happens, if people choose to reject God, maybe it is mercy and not cruelty to end this. How much worse would the world be if Sodom and Gommorah had been allowed to keep going?
"Noah's flood was a special circumstance that didn't happen all the time"
And yet regional floods have continued throughout history. In other words **they happen all the time**.
Therefore Noah's flood had to be global.
Not to mention the bible says the waters covered the tops of the highest mountains, so what contained the waters to allow them to cover the tops of the highest mountains?
If one died for all ,all should go to the one it is not what God can do for you but what you could do for God his kingdom amen 🙏🦔🦅
were children around during the flood?
The flood was not about killing families and children but saving them, which is why (as with Lot's family out of Soddom) the story focuses on a family that is saved, and violence and evil that is removed. In both cases, innocents are born out of an environment where they would die, this is family vs anti-family, innocence vs guilt. To interpret these accounts as being about the death of innocence is to miss the point made repeatedly through scripture. People do this out of a desire to deny that a society can lose all virtue. A denial of the standard being violated when judgement comes. God does not kill one family and save another, this isn't arbitrary favouritism. In this day and age, people cannot grasp that a culture can exist where innocence and family have no place. (even though some today are responsible for making such an environment)
God is sovereign, so technically, anyone who dies is killed by God, whether directly or indirectly.
I would add that one cannot get 'God approves of violence' from a story where God enshrines human dignity (Genesis 9:6).
Seriously, start educating your self.
@@berosi Lazy reply is lazy.
Really, "educate yourself" is the go-to response of everyone who dislikes hearing opinions they don't like from modern liberals to flat-earthers to many atheist, to many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who can't stand hearing their interpretation of their own scriptures critiqued even from with their own faith groups.
I'm sorry, but if your response to hearing an opinion you don't like is to just say "educate yourself" and leave it at that, you haven't revealed a superior intellect, only a closed-minded, arrogant and contemptuous attitude towards those you disagree with.
I will say that, as in the Old Testament, God does acknowledge that some forms of violence, such as state violence for the protection of the state and for dealing with certain types of crime, are acceptable and necessary, though of course, we should remember this is not a disregard for the value of human life, but an affirmation, since the state's duty is to preserve law, order, and safety for it's people, and this exercise of violence is a necessary component of that.
@@morgant.dulaman8733 Sure doesn't sound like Jesus...
@@B.S._Lewis My good fellow, you should consider Christ as He is revealed in the Book of Revelation, where at the last he triumphs over evil and punishes human inequity, first by destroying his enemies at the final battle of Megiddo, then annihilating the devil and his apostate underlings after the millennium comes to a close.
A great theme that appears over and over in the scriptures is that violence is necessitated by the existence of evil, which will inflict violence whether there is a force to stop it or no. The Lord clarifies that he is merciful to those who repent of their wickedness and self-willed madness, but if someone isn't willing to repent, he will at the last bring judgement down on their heads.
I would tend to believe the same event that caused noah to even need the ark also sunk atlantis, which is the eye of the sahara today. Giving you a list of potential floods to refer to like the greater drias climate catastrophe.
And answersingenesis' articles refuting the proposition that the Hebrew word "Aretz" should eb translated as "country" or land" instead of "earth" in the flood story. That interpretation would even contradict the New Testament.
With your view of theistic evolution, how do you explain death before sin? Is God evil?
See: th-cam.com/video/7t-7exqSLpw/w-d-xo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy I watched it, but it doesn't directly answer that question, just seems to indirectly do it. As far as I understood, you mean that God created an imperfect world for us to help Him in perfecting? I get where you are coming from, but wouldn't it be pretty much objectively better to create a perfect world (like Young-Earth Creationism claims) and not create a world where innocent people and animals experience suffering?
jaffa tyree There is only one God. All the other gods are human made and therefore are not God.
x-pop one if there is evil there has to be good that you’re basing that evil on, if there is good where does the moral law of good come from?
@@x-popone6817 I think you'll find the book or perhaps the film "The giver" to be rather interesting. Obviously the book pushes this point home the best, which is the fact that life without pain and suffering would therefore necessitate being bland and boring, without joy or pleasure because you lack the contrast for comparison.
It makes a lot of sense too, evidenced by how people tend to live unhappy lives in this era despite all the glorious advancements we've made, if you took someone from the early 1900s and put him here and now he would be in pure Ecstasy 24/7 without a worry in the world. Yet people now get all worked up when their order is messed up.
1. Duration of the flood.
"We cannot reconstruct how long the rain lasted or the length of the aftermath of the flood [...] . [ ... ] instead, it is designed to convey the massive scope of the cataclysm."
That really seems like a convenient assumption. In no way you can conclude from having no information, that is was just written to paint a picture. Or you must assume that this passage was written by men who didnt know what exactly happened. Like a story, where some numbers are reoccuring but you cant really tell what exactly happened. Or the word were given by God, which leads to an very old argument, why does God speak in metaphors? Why does the reader of to figure out if it should be taken literal or metaphorical? There no guide to that, which is illogical for something that should dedicate your whole life.
2. "Since God is in all planes of existence it is logically impossible for Him to murder someone the way a human might" and "When a human kills someone they remove that person from their plane of existence"
First, that would conclude that the person who was murdered by a human ends up in a different place, than the person killed by God, saying that there is more than "Hell and Heaven". And I dont think that this is actually what you are trying to say here but I dont know enough. It feels just odd that you come to such an easy conclusion, just because "God is on all planes", he is still ending Life and Im sure some of the victims of the flood wouldnt go to heaven. Elaborate if you care to explain. Second, the "Inception" analogy is completely false. In "Inception" the person who is killed in a dream, is not on the same plane of existence as the person who is killed in Real Life. But when were talking about God killing a person, that person is on the same plane of existence as the person murdered by another human.
3. Children. As I remember, a human being born is not innocent by definition of what happened to Adam and Steve. Since you brought up no passage that says that children and babies are innocent, there would be no evidence for your claim that "there were no children and babies". There probably were children and babies but because of Adam and Eve, they werent free from Sin. But, again, Im just questioning, I dont know everything and I could be false.
4. Just to poison your view on me and what I actually believe: Youre searching for convenient assumption to justify the flood. In our human definition, it would have been a genocide. But Gods not an evil massmurderer, so there must be an explanation. Youre searching for an answer you already have. Because if the flood was immoral, God would be immoral. Think about it and maybe start making excuses. I know youre educated on the bible and other texts. But youre not reading it with an open mind. Youre already having your truth, you just need the explanations. If something doesnt make sense, your gonna make it so.
So I’m curious, are you a Christian? Not super important but just a thought. Also, I think the only thing we need to consider when it comes to the moral a character of God is this; If we can show that God exists and that he resided Jesus from the dead, then we could reasonably say that since God is all knowing and all loving, Justice and wrath could naturally flow from his loving nature and therefore, the judgments he executed in the Old Testament were justified. Sometimes I never understood why others thought the flood was immoral. Ever since I was a kid, the idea of God flooding a region because of sin and violence made perfect sense. But of course you have the hardcore atheists who want to find anything that seems wrong in God’s moral nature, such as by invoking the possibility of infants being in the flood. To be honest, if the land itself was filled with violence and evil, it wouldn’t even be safe to raise a child there. And if this was something that was going to grieve God, then I think that he must’ve had a good reason to send the flood. I’m not going to assume that there were or were not any infants, but if you think about it, imagine a place worse than the worst city in the United States, imagine a place with no police, no laws, just nothing but lawlessness. I really doubt any family oriented people in that region would’ve stayed. Either they fled the region before they could be killed by others, or they were killed by others. Sometimes, I often question the moral character of God. I did it once and I asked him, and he said the he was the one who created heaven and earth, and he is just. Not only that, but when you really start to study the text and study the way humans are, it really starts to make sense why God would execute such judgments.
@@vibrantphilosophy Okay, at first, thanks for your comment! Really appreciate that! I wouldnt consider myself anything, Im not an atheist nor a christian or a believer. Im the one who doesnt know. BUT to be clear here, I know for myself the bible is a fantasy, theres no way that a book, written by man and more than 5k years old, holds the truth. And if it does, it goes beyond my understanding of the world and Im not sorry for not believing in it. I have a free will and if that caused me to be a "non-believer" so be it.
But lets get down to the river. Youre saying that God should have had a reason to do it, right? As far as I understood you, youre aware that from a human perspective, Gods actions are questionable. But if you follow your teachings, God always has a reason for his actions right? But I wanna ask you a question: What if he doesnt? Why should an action, that is immoral to us, be moral because HE did it? Why should our earthly morals not apply to him? Why does it always have to be "God acts in mysterious ways" or "God has a plan"? If hes real and does harm to an innocent man (like Hiob or "Job"), why shouldnt we condemn God for that? Why should he be above our morals, if he created us in his imagine? Is it really okay to accept his wrath, just because hes God almighty? Ill thank you if you read this far. I hope youre not offended or something!
From now, Im pushing my narrrative. Ill try to somewhat persuade you that Christianity is a fantasy. If youre not having that, stop reading :) Ill understand! But if you wanna read further, I have another question to you: What would happen if you stopped believing? Do you think youll go to hell?
Thats it, I hope you have a great day! Wish you all the best!
I always thought it was funny how people say that they think God was unjust for killing off most of humanity, and then you see a bunch of people say that we deserve covid 19 and that humanity needs to be reset....
It just seems to boil down to people wanting to judge everything for themselves and not liking God deciding how things should be.
@@Zayindjejfj Why can't God decide to be clear and relatable rather than murderous? Why do so many call out and hear nothing back, but he has a storehouse of pain and pestilence to unleash whenever the whim strikes him?
@@6Churches Good questions.
1. God is not our celestial genie, showing up on our terms. You seek him, you lose your pride, your lose your self absorption. That is the whole point. He is also not murderous. You think (most likely as a materialist) that you have the moral high ground? You have no objective basis for morality. If the God of the bible exists, he is the absolute standard of good and morality, so there is no possible moral dillema there, it is just your opinion that he is evil because he is inconvenient to you.
2. I recommend you watch IP's video on "divine hiddenness" it will answer all your questions about that.
3. God doesn't just mess with earth and people like we are some sims in a videogame. We make our choices. The times where God intervened and made large displays were all in the old testament, before Jesus, largely to protect the Jews and allow their survival.
I think it’s funny when people claim COVID is an all loving benevolent virus.
@@user-ps7ij6ge6d So if I look at your points 1 and 3, you're really saying God isnt a celestial genie to everyone, only when he picks favourites and only in select portions of human history when the whim strikes him. An unreliable genie, but nice if you find that he's decided to be on your side in a particular conflict.
You should do one on divine simplicity.
if the world continued to think evil continually and if the world was filled with violence the children would grow up to be just like the adults. God is the sovereign king of all creation so the giver of life has the authority to take life any time he chooses. We give doctors the authority to end the life of a fetus 300,000 times a year but no one seems to throw a fit over that fact.But when God does it suddenly you have a problem. sometimes it becomes necessary to have an abortion when the mothers life is in danger.
So….you’re argument is you’re ok with abortion? Sheesh
so.... abortions have to happen sometimes when theres no other way around it but when a child dies you blame God as being evil but most abortions are unnecessary but are you opening your mouth against it??@@JamesDirette sheeeeesh!
abortions have to happen sometimes when it endangers the womens life sheeeeeeeesshh not just because someone is irresponsible and cant keep their legs closed sheeeeeesh so, i'm not for every abortion just because they didnt act responsibly. but theres clearly a time to save the mother. usually when people read about the flood if they are atheist they complain why did God kill those babies well, do you think its ok to abort babies when its not a threat to the mothers life?? if you do then you are a hypocrite.
sometimes its necessary when the mothers life is in danger. sheeeesh@@JamesDirette
@user-fc2zb9po8t sometimes its necessary when a womens life is in danger sheeeeeesh not just because@@JamesDirette
Killing innocent children without the hope of rehabilitation is evil and lazy. He could have killed all adults a la angel of death in Pharoah and Moses story. Then had Noah or Himself teach the children.
@Anthony Fawcett You must be pro-abortion then?
@Anthony FawcettSo... God kills babies = good. Man kills babies = bad. Got it. But honestly by your reasoning a baby murderer is really just doing that baby a huge favor. Forget about all the good things that kid will get to experience and just focus on all the pain and suffering they're avoiding. Then they get to be with Jesus forever. Unless original sin is really a thing and they end up in baby purgatory😭.
@Anthony Fawcett What makes you think that God even thinks twice to send a child to Hell? Where do you think that those kids joyfully worshipping Baal with their parents go? Is this one of those made up "age of accountability" situations?
@Anthony Fawcett Then I am lost on your original comment. If a child suffers a painful drowning and it is possible that they are tortured for eternity after. I'm missing where the good for the child is...
@Anthony Fawcett Scratch that last comment, I didn't get your age of accountability response. But I don't know where you are getting that from biblically. I do know that the Bible says we are born with a sinful nature though. Also sacrifices were offered on behalf of sins that were unawaringly committed and I have heard many Christian prayers asking forgiveness of unknowingly committed sins.
The Great Flood or Great Reset was to wipe that phase of humanoids, many phases have existed, and many were half human half animal. The Tartarians from the last phase of humans were Half Human Half Goat. The Annunaki were half human half animal. Look up the great mud floods. Then look up Tartarians with horns.
IP, I appreciate your work, but the argumentation behind this was very poor. For one, you said that when God kills someone, He just transfers them to another plane of existence, while humans just kill for selfish and hateful reasons. First of all, while humans may mainly kill for immoral reasons, there are circumstances where killing is justified. Like war. God led several of them in the Bible. But more importantly, when someone kills someone else, how is that not transferring them to another plane of existence? Are we talking specifically about intentions? Moreover, God *is* killing. He's removing life from body. Which is fine because He was casting judgment in the flood narrative. I think that's all that needs to be said instead of trying to dance around that idea.
Then you argued that it's possible children didn't die in the flood. You tell us to not put on the text what we think it says based on conjecture, yet your very argument that follows commits this exact error. You basically argue that the flood was local, was an isolated incident, and that because it was stated there were no righteous people in the land, it couldn't have included children because they have an age of accountability. You further supplement this with the idea that people who cared about their children would have left. If God can't "kill" and children aren't accountable for their sin, what's wrong with suggesting they died on you view? All it would mean is that they went straight to heaven, or a better plane of existence. Your second point about parents leaving is absolutely conjectural. There are no indications at all that people left. Your view requires more assumptions than just thinking, "Well, everybody died except Noah's family. It's likely there were children included."
You are reading way to much Into this. This is not a treaty on ethics, man. This is just a quick overview of the differences between god and humans and why it is not the same when God ends a life. If you kill their presence is gone from you and the same doesn’t apply to God, which changes the effect and thereby shed light on intent. If the intent will not get take them out of existence then is unlikely you would kill for immoral reasons. That was all I’m saying
Yeah, I agree if children did die it would have been immoral, and with regards to children in the region I said in the video that was just a possibility, and I know it speculative because the text doesn’t say, but so is the opposite.
The question isn't is God immoral for killing everyone in the flood. The question is is God immoral for allowing sinners, including Noah, to live. In Genesis 18:25 Abraham asked God "will not the Judge of all the earth do right." If God is holy then Noah should die, Abraham should die, David should die. They should all die if God is a holy God.
How can God justify sinners? After all, Proverbs 17:15 says that anyone who justifies the wicked is an abomination before the Lord. How can God be just if He justifies sinners. This is a huge problem and the answer is found in Jesus Christ. God took all Noah's sin, all Abraham's sin, all David's sin and placed it on the perfect Jesus and then He punished Jesus for our sin(Romans 5:8) Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath so we wouldn't have to. Now God is just and the Justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus(John 3:16).
InspiringPhilosophy Okay, I am confused with the death of the first-borns that was brought upon Egypt by God; it is contradictory to me that He would spare the children in the flood, but not the children of Egypt. Why is this? Or am I missing important context?
What if a simular flood would happen again but this time killed innocent people?
Guy in court on a murder charge. His defence : I was just heiping God move him to another plane of existence
@InspiringPhilosophy I would like to know your opinion regarding an atheist argument against the divinity of Jesus Christ. The argument was that Jesus believed to be the Messiah and that he would return before the people of that time died, but he was wrong since christians are still waiting for Jesus' second coming. Matthew 24:34 , Matthew 16:27,28 and other verses where the apostles warn about the closeness of the end times are used in support of this argument.
While prophets in the Old Testament performed miracles, Jesus was different in who He said He was. Revelation 3:14 Jesus says he is the beginning of the creation of God. When Jesus returns to where he came from, which is heaven, he's basically the same as THE Angle of the Lord in the Old Testament. Jesus calls Himself THE Son of man, THE Son of God and John calls Him the manifestation of the invisible God. Scripture is clear there is only one God, but Jesus is the manifestation of God we can interact with.
From the time a person here's about Jesus' second coming, it's less than 100 years and that would be an acceptable amount of time in our human reckoning of time. If Jesus hadn't delayed His return in order to get the very last soul he created that He found acceptable, the Atheist wouldn't even be able to ask the questions they ask, they never would have existed.
He could mean the astrological age of Pisces.
The historical Jesus may have never thought of himself as messiah. These verses have Jesus speaking to the Son of Man whom he expected to imminently intervene and overthrow the evil forces in the world. This clearly didn’t happen, and early Christians had to come up with a way of explaining why Jesus words didn’t come true. Enter Christian “theology”.
CDTV It’s not a matter of believing or not believing, it’s first a matter of reconstruction of the text. Modern scholars vary to some extent in this, but the Jesus you worship and the Jesus presented in the gospels is likely not the historical Jesus. To the extent you can get to the historical Jesus with what we do have, it’s clear there is development across the gospels as to what who his followers believed he was. Your conflating textual criticism with religious belief, and I’m not really interested in the latter.
CDTV Textual criticism makes perfect sense. My belief (or lack thereof) in Jesus is not predicated on if he thought he was messiah. You presume a book to be correct, damn scholarship and evidence that may say otherwise, and that’s dangerous.
Great work as always