site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   3276 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 26, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Meanwhile the biggest argument against the Catholic Church is why hasn't God smitten us all yet? It's inexplicable. Maybe we have just barely enough rosarys/day to keep it at bay for now.

It's inexplicable.

He promised not to. It's right there in the Bible.

Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your [a]descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

It rules out a flood. No comment on other means of destruction.

The promise of "I would not use a single one out of infinite possible ways of destroying you" is hardly worth anything, so I don't think that's what it meant. The people at that time may have lived in different societies from ours, but they weren't stupid.

It is pretty well accepted across most forms of Christianity that at some point this world will end. I'm not sure what tradition you are pulling from where God will not destroy the world as it exists today and make a new Heaven and new Earth.

at some point this world will end

The flood didn't end the world. It ended the sinners (presumably, though as we all know it didn't exactly work out that way). That's what the covenant promises not to do, and that's what the original question was about - why God didn't destroy "us all", presumably for our sins. That's exactly what happened in the story of Noah, and that's exactly what the abovementioned covenant was about. The Christian (and other religions') treatment of the Eschaton is substantially different from that. And there's no specific trigger condition for it.

I think Catholics see this differently. At least, "God promised not to end the world in a flood." is the reason I got when I asked my priests, parents, and Catholic school teachers how that reconciles with the Second Coming. Which isn't exactly high authority but I never saw a reason to second guess it.

Meanwhile Catholic mystic tradition has lots of visionaries warning of coming chastisements if we don't mend our ways and pray harder.

Are we not all sinners? When Jesus returns, will He not judge us by our sins? There is no specific trigger condition to the eschaton but there is a reason for it - "Behold, I make all things new." The reason for the eschaton is the problem of sin.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats