Unimpressive actions

[Youkilledkenny]

God is said to have done...well....things beyond great. He's said to have created everything (oddly enough he gets no credit for the creation of evil nor the being who is said to have created evil, but that's for another thread).
But when some things in the bible were attributed to him, we see many 'less than impressive' actions.
Take the flood. IF the flood did indeed flood the whole entire planet, that's impressive by human standards for sure. But shouldn't we except a deity such as God to be even more impressive? Maybe some sort of black hole opening up in the earth and swallowing everything he wanted dead instead of water?
Floods are less than spectacular for a being that can do ANYTHING. If I was God, and I wanted people dead, I would be a lot more grand and impressive so that people for the next million years would note what I did. I would want to make an impression that would last for eons. But God didn't seem to do that.
A burning bush that talks and yet isn't consumed? Impressive but bushes burn all the time and some burn for a very long time before they are consumed. While none talk (that I know of anyway) a lot of people hear voices in their head. Did the burning bush have any others that heard the same words, or was it all in his head and only he heard it? Much like Joseph Smith and his reading of those rocks.
As society evolves, we become less impressed with things (horror movie scenes from the 1970s pale in comparison to today) so why wouldn't (shouldn't) we expect God to be more impressive than he has been in the bible?

[theophile]

[Replying to Youkilledkenny]

I think you're missing the point. The real challenge here is less the way that the earth is destroyed, and more the convictions that led to its destruction.

Imagine yourself looking upon an ant hill that you fostered the creation of, but where all but one of the ants were acting in perverse ways. Killing each other. Stealing from each other. Abusing and ripping each other off...

What would you do? Would you not destroy the hill to save that one if you had to? Or would you let that one last true ant fall prey to the rest?

Don't dismiss or simplify the gravity of the situation related here. Don't turn it into a magical pissing match and how far God should have pissed to impress us. That's not the point.

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

Kill them all, then start over again, this time not letting Satan anywhere near creation.

There was no last true ant, Noah was just as bad as anyone else.

Fix the problem, take responsibility, and do it right this time, without leaving any inbreeding problems.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

God is said to have done...well....things beyond great.

"said to have" and "well danged if ain't done did" is two different things.

He's said to have created everything (oddly enough he gets no credit for the creation of evil nor the being who is said to have created evil, but that's for another thread).

Only now that you've mentioned it in the OP, it's a legitimate topic for this thread.

So on that, if someone made 'em "all there is", then by "all", we must conclude someone means "all".

But when some things in the bible were attributed to him, we see many 'less than impressive' actions.
Take the flood. IF the flood did indeed flood the whole entire planet, that's impressive by human standards for sure. But shouldn't we except a deity such as God to be even more impressive?

I'd say creatin' up you a whole entire universe, while ya ain't there to do it, that's as impressive as it gets.

Maybe some sort of black hole opening up in the earth and swallowing everything he wanted dead instead of water?

Trump.

Floods are less than spectacular for a being that can do ANYTHING. If I was God, and I wanted people dead, I would be a lot more grand and impressive so that people for the next million years would note what I did. I would want to make an impression that would last for eons. But God didn't seem to do that.

I'm curious to know what you think about the Holocaust.

A burning bush that talks and yet isn't consumed? Impressive but bushes burn all the time and some burn for a very long time before they are consumed.

Not if you let me take a toke, I'll have it consumed in thousandths of seconds.

While none talk (that I know of anyway) a lot of people hear voices in their head. Did the burning bush have any others that heard the same words, or was it all in his head and only he heard it? Much like Joseph Smith and his reading of those rocks.

Yep. Schizophrenia is a cruel mistress.

As society evolves, we become less impressed with things (horror movie scenes from the 1970s pale in comparison to today) so why wouldn't (shouldn't) we expect God to be more impressive than he has been in the bible?

Or, as science advances, or the knowledge thereof spreads through society, tellin' folks you done talked to you a bush is more apt to set 'em to thinkin' you done smoked ya one.

[1213]

…Take the flood. IF the flood did indeed flood the whole entire planet, that's impressive by human standards for sure. But shouldn't we except a deity such as God to be even more impressive? …

I don’t think the point was to be impressive. But, if the flood went as I believe it went, the event also formed the stage for the end show. Results of the great flood evet were our current continents, glaciers, oil and gas fields, many fossils… … The impact of that event is in my opinion more impressive than the event itself, because in a way, the result that we can see, proves the Bible correct. If it would have been black hole, we probably wouldn’t see the effects of the event as well as we now can see.

Here is explained more accurately the implications and what really happened according to the Bible:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

[theophile]

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

Kill them all, then start over again, this time not letting Satan anywhere near creation.

Not all. Noah was left. And let's be clear: Satan is an innate possibility in any creation. Satan cannot be "kept away." Not if the organizing and driving principle of creation is love, which requires free participation and engagement, and as such the ever-present possibility of rejection, rebellion, etc.

There was no last true ant, Noah was just as bad as anyone else.

Why do you say that? Because he became a drunk? If we had been through what he had been through, probably an alcoholic many of us would become.

Fix the problem, take responsibility, and do it right this time, without leaving any inbreeding problems.

Yeah, I get that's a problem, but I think it misses the point of the story. It's not like the whole thing is biologically viable. We all know that such a restart, in purely scientific terms, would be doomed to fail. It's more about facing the impossible situation of an irredeemably corrupted world and making the hard decisions so that life has a chance to go on.

[JehovahsWitness]

As society evolves, we become less impressed with things (horror movie scenes from the 1970s pale in comparison to today) so why wouldn't (shouldn't) we expect God to be more impressive than he has been in the bible?

We can't see God but we can see the impressive universe and diverse life around us. The beauty is astounding, chance or design? Accident or work of art?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 2 by theophile]

I think you're missing the point.

No. The point here isn't about the WHY "x" was done, but why was "x" done the way it was.

Imagine yourself looking upon an ant hill that you fostered the creation of, but where all but one of the ants were acting in perverse ways. Killing each other. Stealing from each other. Abusing and ripping each other off...

What would you do?

Not drown them because they upset me. Why would I want to kill any of them? Why do you insist violence in place of anything else?

Would you not destroy the hill to save that one if you had to?

No. I would take the one and put him someplace else. Being all (relatively) powerful, I would have other options than to kill. Again, why be violent and vengeful? Seems very unbecoming and quite disturbing.

I have been in a very similar situation and I didn't drown the animals no matter how annoying they were with their actions. Even an aggressive dog can be shown a different way of being. Are we no better than dogs? Or is God less capable than us?

Not only would I expect more (in regards to appearances/showing how grand I am) out of God, but I would also expect much less aggression. Why does a supreme being get angry/mad at its creation enough to eliminate it?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 5 by 1213]

I don’t think the point was to be impressive.

I'd hope not as it would have been a miserable failure. But using water to drown people when you could have done so much more to make an impact?
Humans use gas to kill. Injections of poisons. Laser guided weapons. Even ancient religions from India show more impressive things from their gods.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

We can't see God but we can see the impressive universe and diverse life around us.

Well some say we can IN this creation. But that's probably best left for another topic.

The beauty is astounding, chance or design? Accident or work of art?

Again, best left for another thread but I can say this: there is beauty in chaos; simply because we can't understand it or design it ourselves doesn't make it "god did it". That seems rather simple-minded; not to mention all the poor designs seen in nature.