Noah's Ark

[tumbleweed41]

I can't possibly get into the mind of God and try to say would I be like him.

So you can justify Gods actions, yet waffle on following Gods example.
Do you not strive to follow Christs example? Is not Christ=God?
In the beginning was the Word...
Christ, as God, destroyed all but a handful of his children.
WWJD?

 

[Wotan]

How can you know that you are saved? I think it is impossible not to sin in any way.

Nonsense.

"Sin" is a theological concept. It has no meaning outside that murky "science" and has only a vague meaning within it.

The believers in this stuff can't even agree of what "sin" is. Different sects define it differently. And some don't even bother to define it at all. They just know it when they see it.

 

[Wotan]

So you can justify Gods actions, yet waffle on following Gods example.
Do you not strive to follow Christs example? Is not Christ=God?
In the beginning was the Word...
Christ, as God, destroyed all but a handful of his children.
WWJD?

Make up a parable?

 

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

Nonsense.

"Sin" is a theological concept. It has no meaning outside that murky "science" and has only a vague meaning within it.

The believers in this stuff can't even agree of what "sin" is. Different sects define it differently. And some don't even bother to define it at all. They just know it when they see it.

It is nonsense. But for the sake of the argument I wanted to push further.

 

[Wotan]

It is nonsense. But for the sake of the argument I wanted to push further.

Well, maybe MoF can enlighten us both.

But don't hold your breath. MoF doesn't do "enlightenment" very well.

 

[AntonBatey]

There is a good video on YouTube called, "Noah's Ask: God, Giraffes and Genocide".

Anyone who takes that myth serious has problems.....

 

[sojourner]

There is a good video on YouTube called, "Noah's Ask: God, Giraffes and Genocide".

Anyone who takes that myth serious has problems.....

Seriously in what way? I take it seriously as an allegorical pericope relating to the theological premise that God always saves a remnant. the story is obviously ripped off from the Gilgamesh Epic, and preserves some of the mythic thought innate in humanity.

 

[DeitySlayer]

For an all powerful deity, God sure has bad aim. He couldn't take out the sinful humans without flooding the entire planet?

 

[sojourner]

For an all powerful deity, God sure has bad aim. He couldn't take out the sinful humans without flooding the entire planet?

it's a theological statement about creation as a whole -- not just "sinful humans." In that context, humanity is not set apart from creation, but is representative of creation, as God's best of creation. God created everything good. Humanity spoiled the milk for all creation -- not just for themselves. God's mercy is shown in preserving the righteous remnant in creation.

Sorry. You missed the target on this one.

 

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

it's a theological statement about creation as a whole -- not just "sinful humans." In that context, humanity is not set apart from creation, but is representative of creation, as God's best of creation. God created everything good. Humanity spoiled the milk for all creation -- not just for themselves. God's mercy is shown in preserving the righteous remnant in creation.

Sorry. You missed the target on this one.

And how possibly could from everything good come something bad?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And sometimes a few million innocent bystanders get caught up in the destruction but hey, it's all good.

MoF, have I ever mentioned what a sick, cruel, crazy God you worship?

People have a tendency to project their own personalities and perspectives onto their individual concepts of god.

 

[Zadok]

But society, according to the story, did not destroy itself, with God intervening to salvage what was left.
God himself destroyed all of society. Sparing the one family on earth that he found 'worthy'.
Did not God sacrifice peace by destroying all but a few lives on the planet? If man regrets having sired his wicked children, is he justified to destroy them?

According to the story, God regretted having made man, and so, decided to "wipe man from the face of the earth, man, my own creation and also the animals of the field, and the creatures that crawl on the ground, and the birds of the air; for I regret having made them."
Is this immense loss of life the best an omnipotent God can do?

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.

As we look into the vast expanses of space - life appears to be quite unusual – most certainly the great exception. Saving some life to continue rather than end all life would be the more economical and intelligent. Events of mass extinction but a remnant remaining are not that rare or unthinkable on this little earth harboring life.

Should not man be trying to find ways to reconcile differences rather than finding excuses to seek our own pleasures over the need of perpetrating life?

Zadok

 

[Autodidact]

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.

As we look into the vast expanses of space - life appears to be quite unusual – most certainly the great exception. Saving some life to continue rather than end all life would be the more economical and intelligent. Events of mass extinction but a remnant remaining are not that rare or unthinkable on this little earth harboring life.

Should not man be trying to find ways to reconcile differences rather than finding excuses to seek our own pleasures over the need of perpetrating life?

Zadok

Yeah, certain assumptions we assume that we all share, such as that killing is bad. But when you're dealing with theists, you really cannot take anything for granted.

O.K., step over here to be killed. Because after all, death is not so bad, right?

Exactly what do you consider worse than death, ABBA?

 

[Autodidact]

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?

 

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

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.

As we look into the vast expanses of space - life appears to be quite unusual – most certainly the great exception. Saving some life to continue rather than end all life would be the more economical and intelligent. Events of mass extinction but a remnant remaining are not that rare or unthinkable on this little earth harboring life.

Should not man be trying to find ways to reconcile differences rather than finding excuses to seek our own pleasures over the need of perpetrating life?

Zadok

Talking about killing masses and leaving a few only for a reason that you would like to kill masses again with using adjectives like economical or intelligent.

I do not want to be here when you come to things worse than death.

 

[Noaidi]

it's a theological statement about creation as a whole -- not just "sinful humans."

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.

 

[Wotan]

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.

As we look into the vast expanses of space - life appears to be quite unusual – most certainly the great exception. Saving some life to continue rather than end all life would be the more economical and intelligent. Events of mass extinction but a remnant remaining are not that rare or unthinkable on this little earth harboring life.

. . .

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.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You are assuming that death is the worst possible thing that can ever happen to anybody or anything.

No, I am saying that the taking of life, all life, other than the handful on the Ark, by a being who expressed regret at ever creating them, in no way supports your theology of man destroying itself, and God stepping in to "salvage" what was left.

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.

What I find interesting is your apparent lack of respect for life.

As we look into the vast expanses of space - life appears to be quite unusual – most certainly the great exception. Saving some life to continue rather than end all life would be the more economical and intelligent.

Are you say the omnipotent God had no choice. It was either destroy most and save a few, or destroy all? According to the story, God made a conscious decision to do this. There is no mention of being forced into an either/or and making the most economical and intelligent decision.

Events of mass extinction but a remnant remaining are not that rare or unthinkable on this little earth harboring life.

Now you sound like a naturalist. The events you speak of are the result of natural laws and events. Not a Being making a conscious effort to murder.

Should not man be trying to find ways to reconcile differences rather than finding excuses to seek our own pleasures over the need of perpetrating life?

Indeed, however, if the differences cannot be ironed out, is the obvious choice near genocide (or would it be xenocide, since God is not of this Earth) on the entire human race?
You speak of the near worthlessness of the lives of those killed in one breath, then promote the need of perpetuating life in the next.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Saving some life to continue rather than end all life would be the more economical and intelligent. Events of mass extinction but a remnant remaining are not that rare or unthinkable on this little earth harboring life.

Strange. Hitler said something similar.

 

[sojourner]

And how possibly could from everything good come something bad?

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.