Noah's Ark

[sojourner]

But the whole of creation didn't sin. It was (apparently) just one species. Why the need for wholesale destruction?
If I were a designer, I would fix the part that didn't fit, not scrap the whole design if the rest was ok.

Because it's a theological reflection upon what happens to the created good when humanity makes the wrong choices. And, it's a reflection upon God's steadfastness in saving humanity from itself.

 

[sojourner]

I am always stunned by the immorality - even hatred - expressed by christians. They really DO hate life and humanity. They can openly - and sincerely - justify genocide.

I continue to maintain that simply believing this stuff engenders an attitude that is anti-human, anti-reason, amoral and when followed to its logical conclusion will kill us ALL.

it's not a story of genocide. What I don't understand is how an outsider can deign to preach to us about our own theology, our own writings, our own theological constructs, when they obviously don't understand them. This story has nothing to do with a genocidal God.

 

[sojourner]

Strange. Hitler said something similar.

I doubt, though, that Hitler was coming from a solid theological stance, or that he was able to establish a covenantal relationship with what remained. After all, he committed suicide. God's remnant continues.

 

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

Because God gives us that choice to make. We are created in God's image, which means we have control over our destiny. Since we were created to be the rulers of creation, it was up to us how we shaped it.

A problem I have with that is that God is not bound by his own laws. He is out of it.

 

[jonman122]

it's not a story of genocide. What I don't understand is how an outsider can deign to preach to us about our own theology, our own writings, our own theological constructs, when they obviously don't understand them. This story has nothing to do with a genocidal God.

but god committed genocide and killed millions of men, women, and children.. and animals. I'm 100% certain that falls under genocide.

 

[Autodidact]

it's not a story of genocide. What I don't understand is how an outsider can deign to preach to us about our own theology, our own writings, our own theological constructs, when they obviously don't understand them. This story has nothing to do with a genocidal God.

Well, what do you call it when you kill everyone on the planet except one family?

 

[Autodidact]

I doubt, though, that Hitler was coming from a solid theological stance, or that he was able to establish a covenantal relationship with what remained. After all, he committed suicide. God's remnant continues.

Yeah. And Hitler only killed thirteen million people on one continent. God's job was much more complete.

Cuz as long as you have a "solid theological stance," you really shouldn't mind being slaughtered.

 

[Zadok]

I am always stunned by the immorality - even hatred - expressed by christians. They really DO hate life and humanity. They can openly - and sincerely - justify genocide.

I continue to maintain that simply believing this stuff engenders an attitude that is anti-human, anti-reason, amoral and when followed to its logical conclusion will kill us ALL.

Is believing worse than abortion?

Zadok

 

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

Is believing worse than abortion?

Zadok

Could you expand on that idea? Please.

 

[Zadok]

So let me get this. In order to defend the actions of your God, you have to assert that killing people is really not so bad? Is that right?

I assert that if killing some will end the killing of all - it is better. There is the concept that the death that occurred was because G-d removed his protection. That he did not kill as some interpret but rather allowed them to die. It is estimated that the number of people then is but a fraction of the billions alive today. So the many through the generations were saved and allowed to live.

So we are to assume that the thousands that die daily are killed by those that do not protect them - Interesting theory but will you be judged by the notions by which you judge?

But since we are on this subject – can we assume that abortions of healthy babies associated with healthy mothers can be justified in one breath and G-d criticized in the next breath is the atheist moral high ground? Hmmmmmmmmm


Zadok

 

[tumbleweed41]

I see. In order to defend God's actions, you like to weave abortion into the issue. And then make the assumption that all atheist support abortion.

This is a pitiful attempt to lead the discussion away from the near genocide advocated if one believes the flood story to be literal.

 

[DeitySlayer]

can we assume that abortions of healthy babies associated with healthy mothers can be justified in one breath and G-d criticized in the next breath is the atheist moral high ground? Hmmmmmmmmm

Plenty of atheists feel equally opposed to abortion for 'social' reasons. Myself being one of them. To make sweeping statements like that is foolish and prejudiced. 'Athiests' also include a few milllion Buddhists in South Asia, who are completely opposed to the taking of life. Reconsider your position?

 

[Noaidi]

Because it's a theological reflection upon what happens to the created good when humanity makes the wrong choices. And, it's a reflection upon God's steadfastness in saving humanity from itself.

And, looking around today, did he do a good job? Was it worth the countless deaths?

 

[Autodidact]

Is believing worse than abortion?

Zadok

.....

You are assuming that death is the worst possible thing that can ever happen to anybody or anything. This is most interesting since everyone and everything is going to die even if they are "good" kind and peaceful. Consider that there are things worse than death.

 

[Autodidact]

Is believing worse than abortion?

Zadok

Can I get you some mustard with that red herring?

 

[Autodidact]

I assert that if killing some will end the killing of all - it is better.

So since that last genocide, no one has been killed?

There is the concept that the death that occurred was because G-d removed his protection.

Well there's a lot of crazy concepts in the world, so what?

That he did not kill as some interpret but rather allowed them to die.

Well, is that your interpretation? That God is not so much evil as ineffectual?

It is estimated that the number of people then is but a fraction of the billions alive today. So the many through the generations were saved and allowed to live.

So what you're saying is, since the total population of the world then was smaller than now, merely wiping out all of them was not that big a deal?

So we are to assume that the thousands that die daily are killed by those that do not protect them - Interesting theory but will you be judged by the notions by which you judge?

Why would we assume that?

Just want to remind you--in the story we're talking about, the God you worship deliberately murders everyone on the planet, including the newborn babies.

But hey, death isn't the worst thing that can happen, and who cares about a few little babies anyway?

But since we are on this subject – can we assume that abortions of healthy babies associated with healthy mothers can be justified in one breath and G-d criticized in the next breath is the atheist moral high ground? Hmmmmmmmmm

I'm sorry, I didn't see that post defending abortion; maybe you could quote it for me.

In any case, I can't see why abortion would bother you, since you're fine with murder.

 

[Wotan]

"Just want to remind you--in the story we're talking about, the God you worship deliberately murders everyone on the planet, including the newborn babies."

I just want to point out this loving god ALSO committed abortion. Unless the assertion is that no women was pregnant at the time of this alleged flood.

That seems - unlikely.

 

[satumare]

Hmm...

 

[Rakhel]

And now The story of Noah is about abortion.
Nice gymnastics, people

 

[tumbleweed41]

And now The story of Noah is about abortion.
Nice gymnastics, people

Not 'people', there was only one member who introduced this far off topic issue.