What If God Sends The Flood Again?

After yesterday’s blog on a movie about the Noah flood, I got to thinking about what it would be like if the story were really true.  What if it were really possible for a god to add so much new water to the earth’s atomphere, every spot on earth was under many feet of water.

Not all gods are as vengeful as the God of the Bible.  But, let’s assume there was one who decided to start all over again with humans.  He would again drown all the sinners and save only a handful from one good family.

Who would be the one alpha male and his extended family that would be saved and tasked with repopulating the earth with less sinful people?  If we asked for a show of hands of people who felt worthy to be the family worthy of being chosen, millions of hands would go up.   Perhaps included would be many who read this blog.

In the United States, there would be the assumption that God would choose someone from here.   The most likely to be chosen, many would say, would be a white Protestant.

Would it be a Christian celebrity like Pat Robertson or Michelle Bachmann’s husband?  Both have lots of children to start the repopulation.

The most sin free man in my lifetime, it seems to me, was Gandhi.  But he is out of the running not only because he is dead but also was of the wrong race, nationality and religion.


32 Responses

  1. Michael Ross

    Not all gods are as vengeful as the God of the Bible.

    Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:19-21)

    You got half of it right, Jon.

  2. StanB

    Jon, how much did you listen when you went to church? The rainbow was a new covenant which promised that the world wouldn’t be destroyed by water again. This the belief of Christians and Jews

    1. entech

      I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.
      Genesis 9:13-21

      Does God need a reminder?
      Does he need a lesson in physics ? “The rainbow is not located at a specific distance, but comes from an optical illusion caused by any water droplets viewed from a certain angle relative to the sun ray’s. Thus, a rainbow is not an object, and cannot be physically approached. Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the sun. ” wikipedia.

      Has God never looked back and changed his mind?
      When he made mankind he looked at his handiwork and declared that it was good.
      Later he regretted what he had done and decided to drown them all.
      There is no reason to believe that God could not change his mind and break the covenant, after all according to many man has already broken it anyway.

    2. Henry

      Stan::”The rainbow was a new covenant which promised….”

      The rainbow is a beautiful sign. Now, some are trying to make the rainbow, in part, the symbol of anal sex between men. Similarly, the word “gay” is being destroyed.

      1. entech

        With Henry you always learn something. I always thought that the rainbow flag was a purely lesbian thing. After reading the Henry version I had to look it up only to find it was inclusive, all LGBT.
        Henry why are you so obsessed with that one little aspect of things? Can’t cast the blame this time, your Christian friend Stan brought up the rainbow in a biblical context, You twisted it to homosexuality, specifically male. HMmmmmmmmmmmm.

        1. Henry

          entech:“I always thought that the rainbow flag was a purely lesbian thing.”

          Now we are supplied “context” from one of the destroyer’s henchmen.

          1. entech

            Read the first part again about my thoughts about the symbolism of the rainbow flag. The context actually is that I WAS WRONG.

    3. Stan 4:08 “Jon, how much did you listen when you went to church? The rainbow was a new covenant which promised that the world wouldn’t be destroyed by water again.”

      You apparently do not pay attention yourself. As entech pointed out, “In God, all things are possible.” He may conclude a deal in made only when both side keep up their part–people went right back to sinning, why should I keep my half?

      In addition, God tested people in the Bible, sometimes for his own amusement. It would be consistant with the god character to have made this optical illusion, the rainbow, with the very intent of tricking people into thinking it was OK to sin again, then drown once more. “Don’t you humans ever get it, STOP SINNING.”

      The real key is the phrase, rainbow in the clouds. Have you ever seen lots of clouds and a rainbow? I haven’t. The illusionary rainbow needs clear sun in air that has the correct amount of moisture. Obviously God was talking there, not about a fake illusionary rainbow, but a real one painted among the clouds.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Jon; Your last paragraph is sheer nonsense. Have you ever seen a rainbow without clouds? The refracted light through the raindrops from the clouds. A perfectly clear day with no clouds=no rainbow. You fly. Have you never seen a rainbow from the air? In the right conditions, one can see a complete circle, or even double circles. I have, and I’m sure you may have too. No one mentioned an illusion other than you or Entech. Not “painted”, (your word), but refracted.

        “Should I keep my half”? You don’t have to. You are free to reject it. The same with all God’s covenants, which you do.

        1. Wanna 2:32 “The refracted light through the raindrops from the clouds.”

          It says that in the Bible?? I don’t think so. The rainbow appears following the rain. An entech explained, the ones we see are illusions caused by the angle of the light hitting moisture droplets–the red at sunset is the same thing. Our metorologist has used that very word, illusion.

          How could God use something that is merely an illusion upon which to base something as important as the “covenant”. If he can use something that is an illusion for that purpose, everything else could be an illusion as well–death on the cross, everything. Whatever was meant by a rainbow in the clouds had to be something other than an illusion.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Circle the topic. Typical philosophical trash talk to escape. Go back to your words @1:32, last paragraph. Now you are against science when it exposes your silliness. If your “metorologist” (whatever that is), calls a rainbow an illusion, he needs to go back to school and learn what an optical illusion is. Scientists use the optical spectrum in many ways, but it certainly is not an illusion. It is something that can be measured and qualified, Far beyond visible light. It is what is used to determine elements both here on earth, and in space. Hardly an illusion. This isn’t my field, but I can see BS when I see it- – – – and I see it in your 1:32, and 4:50.

          2. Wanna 5:54 “The word painted is in the Bible only two times and isnot remotely related to the rainbow.”

            Those who wrote the Bible had no idea the rainbow was an illusion created by the sun on molecules of water vapor. They thought it was something the god had painted there in the sky. That’s why they carelessly referred to it as being in the clouds.

          3. Wanna B Sure

            Jon: so you must go by the “If I say it enough, it will become so”, Re. “painted”–” illusion.” More BS. Or in the case of a pig herder, PS.

      2. StanB

        Jon, science is not your strong point is it. You can even tell by the name RAINbow that you need rain to seek one.

      3. entech

        When Wanna said, “In the right conditions, one can see a complete circle” he was correct, but that needs to be extended to all rainbows, the ‘right conditions’ is the key
        Too much cloud or too much rain will prevent the coming together of all the requirements. If there is enough cloud or the rain is heavy enough to obscure the sun there will be no rainbow.
        Without the water droplets , the sun and the observer being in the right relative positions the observer will not see a rainbow. A rainbow is not a physical thing, it may appear that way, but watching one appear to appear and then appear to disappear again shows that it is illusory. This is the phenomena seen, as Jon said, after the rain, as the rain slows to a drizzle the point will be reached when the conditions are met and the rainbow will be seen, as the rain slows and stops the rainbow will no longer be seen.
        What happens is that the white light is dispersed (separates into component colours) when it strikes a prism (raindrop) and this causes the red light to be refracted less that blue light so that the light “bouncing” back, the observer sees the colours of the visible spectrum.
        This phenomena of the illusion of the spectrum being a visible entity is not related in any way to the actual spectrum. The visible spectrum of light is only a small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum which includes X-rays, microwaves and radio waves which cannot be directly observed, but, are detected by their effect: for example a radio station broadcasts a signal which cannot be picked up by our ears, if we have a suitable aerial and a means of separating the components the sound that was originally converted and broadcast can be reconstructed and heard.
        So Wanna is correct when he speaks of the electromagnetic spectrum as being real, as not an illusion, even going as far as to enable the composition of distant stars to be estimated fairly accurately.

        Actually Jon was close to being right when he spoke of very cloudy days etc. obscuring the sun and upsetting the delicate balance needed for a rainbow to be visible.

        I think the problem lay in the word illusion, when a specific kind of illusion was meant.
        It is an “Optical Illusion”, “Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behaviour and properties of light … ” (wikipedia). Some people get an annoying tickle in their ears or eyes when they see or hear some things and immediately jump to the wrong conclusion. They are so sensitive about the fragility of their belief system that they have to immediately go on the attack to defend something they may not actually believe. How many take the literal view (hyperliteral?) that the deluge story actually happened and is describe exactly in the Bible, that the earth is actually on a few thousand years old and was created in a literal six days. I have met more that consider all of the early words to be metaphorical, pointers to lessons to be learned, the tradition followed Yeshua with the parables.

        “jump to wrong conclusions” or perhaps “draw their own delusions” 😳 😆

  3. entech

    He would again drown all the sinners and save only a handful from one good family.
    Jon you forget science and technology, we have nuclear submarines that stay underwater for months, wouldn’t take much to adapt, surface vessels – no problem.
    No my guess is flood with radioactivity, after a couple have been made immune.
    There must be many ways he could perform his wonders.

  4. pqbd

    If there is a repopulation ‘head start’ program, maybe Warren Steed Jeffs of the FLDS would be a good candidate for the alpha stud. One account said he has 79 wives and 60 children already. It would take at least 300 x 50 x 30 cubits to keep his outfit afloat. With that many children and wives on board he probably would lock himself in the wheel house until things dried out. What a Steed!

    1. pqbd 12:24 re: Warren Steed Jeffs, fundmentalist wing of the Mormons.

      I agree Jeff and his several wives would be a good candidate to expedite repopulation–he’s of the U. S., white, not Catholic and wears good underware. Let’s keep his resume in the stack.

  5. Brad

    Climate change is producing some undesirable problems on our planet. And either you can believe it is a hoax, or that it is real. If you believe it is real, then your religion could be used to delude you into believing it’s the wrath of God as opposed to humans polluting the planet with too much CO2.

        1. entech

          IPCC climate change report: Human role in global warming now even clearer
          By Jake Sturmer, Alex McDonald, staff
          Updated Sat 28 Sep 2013, 3:50pm AEST

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says there is now a 95 per cent probability that humans are responsible for global warming.
          The figure, in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which was released in Stockholm on Friday, is a 5 per cent increase from the panel’s 2007 landmark report.

          More than 600 scientists and researchers contributed to the fifth assessment report, which is the result of almost seven years’ work by scientists and policymakers.
          It is based on more than 50,000 contributions from around the world, and an exhaustive peer review process.
          From ABC news channel.

          It seems that the statistics can mean whatever is required by the reader. Some say it is too late catastrophe is around the corner, others it will never happen. Big mining companies and their friends and neighbours, Industry and media owners etc. are the main ones to say it will never happen or at least “it is greatly exaggerated” (besides it would badly affect our bottom line) supported by the people that fall for the line.
          On the other hand there are some researchers who will get carried away for various reasons, ideological, political or simply hoping for research grants to continue.

          Even all the exaggerators and all the deniers combined cannot know the true story.
          Climate change is a part of the life of the planet, Ice Ages and extended hot droughts are simply a part of history going back millions of years.
          The question is how much is anthropogenic, given that carbon dioxide levels are generally agreed on as being a factor and that the levels have risen 40% since the industrial revolution and 20% since the 1950s it would be hard to maintain that human activity has no effect. For those who love to throw Pascal’s wager around, think about it.

          The latest IPCC report is more conservative, I haven’t seen where it has downgraded the long term dangers.
          As expected, the fifth IPCC report shows the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by more than 20 per cent since the 1950s.
          Global temperatures have risen almost 1C since the pre-industrial era.
          The IPCC assessment is considered a relatively conservative estimate of the threat posed by global warming.
          The IPCC was established by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988 in order to review and report on the published climate science.
          We’re doing everything humanly possible to see that the report is of very high quality, totally credible and robust in every sense of the scientific content.
          IPCC chairperson Rajendra Pachauri
          The IPCC’s previous report six years ago was criticised for a handful of well-publicised mistakes, particularly the claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
          However, Dr Pachauri says the latest findings are solid.
          “Of course we’ve learnt from that experience and this time around we’re being very, very careful,” he said.
          “Of course this is a human effort but we’re doing everything humanly possible to see that the report is of very high quality, totally credible and robust in every sense of the scientific content.”

          1. Henry

            The IPCC is in good standing. They share the same fame as Obamba, the Knobel Piece Prize. They both subscribe to fraudulence to achieve their intended end.

          2. entech

            A good cretinist viewpoint. Deliberate denial of anything you don’t like, anything that does not pass the test of the sieve of scripture.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        An after thought. Not to be misunderstood—Re. the “or not”; was in reference to “the wrath of God”.

  6. Wolfy32

    The rainbow story, I always thought of as metaphorical. Something a parent tells a child.. Aawww. Look at what God put in the sky for us.. At a time when science was nonexistent and people had no points of reference, everything was described as “god did this.” IMagine if we had no science to explain everything, everything that we describe as scientific, would be replaced by “God did that.”

    our culture cannot relate to this. We have a lot of science happening, a lot of explanations for everything, and we’re becoming much more logical about things. I believe God designed us this way. He knew we would start learning how to transition from “blaming” god for everything to Learning how everything works and taking responsibility for ourselves…

    That said, God did promise the future demise of humanity… However, he promised that next time, he would not destroy the world with floods, but, by fire instead..

    The bible is always full of so much hope… So, now we get to look forward to being burned to death after we learn scientifically how that’s going to happen.. We’ll see it coming this time even, have a reasonable explanation for it, and then the 1/3 to 1/2 the world will be bruned up in overwhelming fires.. As overwhelming as the flood(s) may have been.

    If GOD is truely to blame for the floods. Then, I believe there’s a scientific explanation for how He did it. I don’t believe water just fell on the earth (other than during the earth’s creation). God has seemed to follow the rules of science for the most part.. Given that he created the rules of science if he is God. So, that said.. I go with he sent some of his military to go melt the “polar” ice caps of the day. (whatever they were at the time). And manipulated the ice shelves to melt. Then sat back and waited and watched.

    Maybe there was a genetic mutation he didn’t want humanity to aquire at the time, or a mutation within the human genome that led to a lesser species that he didn’t want to outbreed the species he wanted to succeed.. Who knows.. Scientificly we can only speculate why someone wanted innocent people, man, woman, child, and elderly all destroyed..

    All I know, is that maybe there is some scientific truth to ice ages, and some scientific truth to possibly being destroyed by fire in the future given our arsenals of weaponry, given the level of forrest fires on the globe, given changes in nature… Etc.

Comments are closed.