91 thoughts on “Sin and the Flood”

  2. we still have sin because man still wants to follow and do what they want and ignore God’s word, that is why we still have sin

    Like

    Reply

    • Actually, it’s probably because it’s become big business. I’ve read God’s word (I have to assume you mean the Bible, and I’ve read it cover to cover several times) and still couldn’t figure out exactly what was meant by “sin”. Some of the things like executing rape victims didn’t seem very good to me, but it’s in God’s word. Others like not blending fibers in your clothing were weird also. The simplified version found in one part of the New Testament, Love god and love your neighbors (no matter who they happen to be) sounded pretty good, and the idea that people would be judged by how they treated others, especially the less fortunate sounded great too. But some of that other stuff contradicted those ideas, so I simplified and dumped the whole thing. Now, I try to treat others as if they were God themselves, and look at everything as sacred. No problem, dumb mistakes, yes, at times, but sin, no.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

      • Interesting approach. Actually, the Church would say that sin, Original Sin that is, was inherited (through DNA, no doubt, although they have never explained it scientifically). One problem with the concept of Original Sin is that God said that man is evil only beginning in childhood (Genesis 8:21). Of course, there is no proof that the God of the Bible is the Prime Creator just as there is no proof that the god of the Quran (Allah) is the Prime Creator. Actually, there is no proof that the god of any religion is divine.

        Like

        Reply

          • Ah, the old, “absence of evidence” ploy, which, unfortunately for believers, also applies to fairies, elves, trolls, ogres, leprechauns, fuzzy, pink unicorns, and the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

            Liked by 2 people

          • If it were a ploy, then you missed it. Actually, the concept is pretty universally accepted. For example, you can’t prove a negative or you can’t prove what exists beyond space and time. That’s why Stephen Hawking admitted that you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.

            Like

          • Which is exactly why you can’t prove that fairies, elves, trolls, ogres, leprechauns, fuzzy, pink unicorns, and the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist. But if you can, please get back to me!

            Like

          • All I’ve ever said, is that there is no evidence that a god or gods exist. If you have some, trot it out.

            Like

          • On that point we agree. However, you believe very strongly that there is no God and yet you fail to do the very thing that you ask others to do, which is to prove it.

            Like

          • “you believe very strongly that there is no God” – You’re putting words in my mouth, and I don’t know where your hands have been. I believe that there is no evidence that a god exists.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’ve seen enough of your comments on various posts to know that you strongly believe that a god does not exist. Please correct me if that is not the case.

            Like

          • I believe that there is no evidence that a god exists. Is there something about that simple sentence that you do not understand? Would it help if I typed more slowly –?

            Like

        • chicagoja, I see you have given arch a challenge. May I ask what you mean by god? Maybe then we can know whether it is possible to demonstrate that it does[n’t] exist.

          Like

          Reply

          • I agree with Chicagoja. But I have made my ambition more modest, which is to determine whether or not the Bible is a divinely inspired book? Because that then tells us whether or not we should take any notice of what it says.

            Stories like the flood point towards it not being a divine book.

            Like

          • Peter, your ambition is, I think far from modest. It is loaded. It involves a description of what is divine and only then can you be told how this divine being can interact with humanity.
            Lastly, how to differentiate between divinely inspired works and others suffering the deficiency of divine inspiration.

            Like

          • If you believe in free will, it’s hard to contemplate that divine inspiration would not be a violation of that free will. Besides, an infinite life force would be infinitely incomprehensible to a finite mind.

            Like

          • I’m always amazed by apologists’ contortions. First, god lived in the sky, then Mankind learned to fly – no god. So he was moved somewhere beyond earth’s gravitational pull, but we went to the moon, and sent Voyager to the edge of our solar system – no god.

            Now he has been moved beyond space and time, and is now, according to JA, “an infinite life force…infinitely incomprehensible to a finite mind.” – moving him beyond human reach doesn’t make him more real, just more inaccessible, but certainly safe from prying eyes.

            How an intelligent mind can believe such nonsense is beyond me.

            Like

          • You confuse me with apologists. Your mistake. As for believing that God is in the sky or on the moon. Again, your mistake as I never have believed that. If you don’t want to agree with my premise, that’s fine but to just try and refute the other person’s argument without putting forward one of your own is… well, in my opinion it’s intellectually dishonest. Going to the moon is by no way the proof that God does not exist. I can only assume that you have no proof and therefore resort to talking about fairies, elves, trolls, ogres, leprechauns, fuzzy, pink unicorns, and the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. As I said before, there obviously is no proof that God exists, however there is plenty of evidence. For example, just research what Einstein, Planck or Plato or other great minds had to say about the subject. I suspect you have and you already know what I’m talking about. Either that or you’re simply just a Useful Idiot.

            Like

          • “To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself to us as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the centre of all true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men.”
            — Albert Einstein —

            “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
            — Albert Einstein —

            Like

          • Albert Einstein said:

            “Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
            “God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver….”
            “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man….”
            “When the solution is simple, God is answering.”

            Like

          • Care to tell us how early in his life he made those comments? They certainly seem to contradict the ones I presented, that he made later in life.

            Like

          • Mak, give it up, I mean, really, here we have two people who are having problems with the existence of leprechauns and you expect them to be able to handle gods? You are a wondrous optimist, my Kenyan friend! The secret to proving the existence of leprechauns is liberal applications of Tullamore Dew. As for the gods, well, start with the Water of Life I guess.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Bingo! And, if Jesus came to atone for sin and free man, blah, blah, blah, why didn’t a single thing change after?

    Why don’t Christians face these questions? I remember thinking about this as a kid, wondering, “Wait up, why do we need a second coming? Why didn’t everything get sorted first time around??”

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  4. For the first 500 post-flood years there was no sin. Then it came back. It started small. A boy named Jeeves stole his little sister’s lollipop and lied about to his mom. Once he realized he’d gotten away with it, he wrote a book called “How To Steal And Fib About It Without Getting Caught.” The book became an international best seller, and sin was once again back in fashion. God’s ass got kissed less, but fun was reintroduced to mankind. Hope this helps. $Amen$

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. “we still have sin because man still wants to follow and do what they want and ignore God’s word” – I’m always amazed when people say this, as, assuming they have read the Bible to arrive at this conclusion, they should already know that absolutely none of the books of the Bible were written by their god – they were written by fallible, mostly-anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant, Bronze and Iron Age men, who only TELL us that their god said various things, yet 3000 years later, some people are still gullible enough to believe them.

    Much like other leaders – Presidents, Kings and such – people tend to get, it would seem, the gods they deserve.

    Like

    Reply

  6. Can any of my regular visitors/readers/commenters tell me why I keep getting CHRISTIANS following my blog? And even “liking” my posts? Am I not clear in my writings that I do not believe in the bible and all that that entails?

    And yet … none of them bother to answer questions that are directed to THEM!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Perhaps they’re looking for you to invest in their next film,”The Second Coming.” Movies cost a fortune to produce these days. I get them following my blog too. I really find that odd as I’m nowhere near as nice to them as you are. I don’t think many of them read the posts. They see “Jesus” or “The Bible” in the tag section and just assume it’s a post and blog praising the greatness of their fabricated invisible guy. Odd critters christians be. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  7. The larger question is why do some people interpret man’s sinful nature as requiring salvation? The answer is that the logic is backwards. That is, if you believe in a divine messiah (as opposed to the human messiah prophecized in the Old Testament) then you need a reason for that divine messiah. So you make up the concept of Original Sin, which is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament and was not taught by the disciples. Besides, with respect to man’s sinful nature, God says that man only becomes evil in his youth (Genesis 8:21), thereby negating the dogma of Original Sin. By the way, other than Christians, who says that God is the Creator mentioned in the Genesis story?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • The other question is, do humans even have a “sinful” nature? Sure, some of them are downright nasty, but the whole species? People ask me if I’ve been saved and I tell them I wasn’t wasted in the first place. Then they ask if I follow “God’s” laws and I seriously and solemnly reply “An it harm none, do as you will” At that point, I usually walk away.

      There is no “sinful” nature, just a human one. We lie, we cheat others, we steal, we even kill others, true. And that’s in our nature to do, it’s not nice, and we’re trying to outgrow the tendencies, but it also is part of what made us who we are. Only each one of us can make a difference, saviors are myths just like talking snakes.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • I’ve always been partial to Jerry Springer’s show closing – I can’t imagine Humanity needing anything more: “Be good to yourself and each other.“

        Like

        Reply

  8. One of the humans on the ark must have been carrying it, so they could spread it around again afterwards. The humans also must have been carrying the head lice, tapeworms, guinea worms, measles, polio and smallpox, etc. No idea how they would manage to muck out all that manure while suffering from so many diseases all at once. But two of every animal would have to include two of every parasite, so Noah and his family were pretty much screwed.

    Unless they put all the animals in pokeballs. That’s the only way I can figure out for it to work!

    Like

    Reply

      • So then Noah had a genetics lab to regrow all the animals afterwards? I’ll stick with pokeballs as being more realistic.

        Honestly, if their god could just poof all the animals into being once, why not just poof in a whole new set after the flood? Why all the rigamarole with a huge ark? Over in Sumeria, Utnapishtim just needed a coracle that could hold him and his family, and didn’t mess with animals at all!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          • As it appeared in the first known work of fiction, the Sumerian novel, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” written about 2750 BCE, which in turn was based on an actual, historical flood in the vicinity of the city-state of Surrupak, in present-day Iraq, in 2900 BCE, when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks (to a depth of 15 cubits), covering an area about the size of three modern counties:

            The actual, historical King Ziusudra of Surrupak escaped the flood on a trading barge loaded with cotton, cattle and beer.

            Like

          • So after all that, are you saying King Surrupak is the one who brought sin back into the world –since Noah and his family were “righteous”?

            Like

          • Actually, that’s not the point, as my comment was just clarifying the previous one regarding Utinapishtim. The reason I asked you to reread it, was because there was no King Shurrupak, it was King Ziusudra.

            Like

  9. Ostensibly it’s because Noah and his sons (because women don’t count in the OT) still had ORIGINAL SIN(TM). Except that kind of contradicts the account of Noah and his sons as being righteous people. Oh, and that ORIGINAL SIN(TM) didn’t exist as an idea at the time.

    It’s all in the index to the OT, commonly referred to as the New Testament. Also, have you heard of the third book in the DIVINE TRILOGY? It’s titled “THE BOOK OF MORMON.” It took God a while to write that one (through intermediaries of course). Still, it’s sure to catch on.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  10. Sin had to stay somewhere or there would be no messiah. You see it is written, sin came into the world through one man, salvation came too through one man. I paraphrase.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Among the many strange things about the flood narrative is that once Noah comes out of the Ark he goes on a bender gets blind drunk and lays around naked. He then curses his son who found him out.

    Like

    Reply

  12. Ah, you see, my child, when Noah had his back turned Sin crept up on the boat, don’t you see, and made it through the Flood and didn’t drown. Maybe it wasn’t the original Sin, but it was Sin nonetheless. If Noah’s wife had kept a cleaner ark, had swept that Sin overboard, then that Sin would have been there at the Landing. Once again, women were the root of Sin in the world!

    May you go forth in peace,

    Father Bluster

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. I’d like to see a creationists honest answer that wasn’t akin to “because…oh look a squirrel!”

    You have to have sin to keep the scam working. You can’t sell someone salvation if they don’t need it.

    I just thought of something brilliant! Salvation Salve. It’s only $29.99 a tin, and cleanses away the sin! Get one for yourself! One for your Mother! One for your brother, brother! Buy now and recieve a Certificate of Authenticity ceritfying that the certificate is indeed authentic!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Sounds like a great product, Peter! Maybe you could go on the Shark Tank to promote it … lol

      You’re so totally correct … “sin” is what keeps it all together. And notice … only one response from my Christian followers. Would appear that even they don’t know the answer … all they know for sure is that it exists. Why? Well because their pastors, priests, bishops, etc. all told them so!

      Like

      Reply

      • Most of the stuff marketed as sin is largely human nature. Coveting and lust are probably the biggest offenses.

        Who doesn’t covet a this or a that? Who doesn’t have a lustful though here or there? Theft and murder are equally sinful, fortunately we have laws against theft and murder. but we all covet and lust. Which is totally within our nature. Pretty damn bright of them to make parts of our nature, the sin they have the cure for.

        You would think as much selling of the cure they do, it would keep their priests from diddling the children.

        Oh, and since no one noticed, and it wasn’t exactly plain to see, my bit about the certificate of authenticity was sort of a metaphor for “our bible is true because it says it is”

        Like

        Reply

    • My shelldigger friend, I hate to inform you that part of Luther’s beef with the church was the sale of indulgences. You are several centuries late. You have to find a proper way of seeling your product. A slave will not do.

      Like

      Reply

    • May I suggest a “sin removing enema” instead? Just squeeze it in, and BANG! All your dirty sin goes right down the toilet! Great to use before colonoscopies and church on Sundays. Wadda think? We’ll make a million, my friend. 🙂

      Like

      Reply

  14. Nan:

    Sorry for cluttering your comments section with blabberings between Arch and myself. I am a bit surprised though that trolls get to express themselves like that on your blog site. Probably not much point in my commenting on your posts in the future. Good luck.

    Like

    Reply

    • First I don’t consider Arch a troll. Having said that, I’ve been a bit surprised at the discussion between you two. From my perspective, you guys were talking past each other.

      Please don’t judge my blog by this discussion. I feel you have a lot to offer and I don’t want to lose your input.

      Like

      Reply

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.