The Most immoral Act in the History of the Earth

[Danmark]

I submit that the single greatest act of immorality is recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis:
'So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.�'

In the 20th century, the most serious acts of genocide involved less than 1% of the human population. Examples are: the extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey, the extermination of Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and others by the Nazis, the extermination of the ethnic Albanians by the Serbs in Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia. The perpetrators have become the most hated of people. But the genocide resulting from the great flood is far more serious. It is recorded as having destroyed over 99% of the human race, leaving only eight humans alive.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#noah

[atheist buddy]

I submit that the single greatest act of immorality is recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis:

...

Do you reject just retribution for evil in all cases or just in the cases about GOD acting as a judge or just in this case of HIM acting as the judge of retribution for evil?

Genocide is a crime, but a group sentenced for their violence and executed by a righteous judge would not be a crime. The number of people is not what makes genocide a crime, but the reason for the deaths and the intent of those making the decision.

IF Ishi (c. 1860 – March 25, 1916) as the last member of the Yahi tribe in California, had been murdered for being Yahi, it would have been a genocide even though only one man died. IF he committed murder and was executed then there would have been no genocide but justice.

IF we restrict genocide from just being the death of a whole people to only apply to a criminally minded violence to exterminate a whole people, then nothing from a righteous Judge can be considered genocide.

You seem to be using the number of dead to justify a call of genocide but
1. there is no indication that GOD was not acting as a judge against their violence in support of justice amid claims that is what HE did, 2. there is no proof that HE was trying to exterminate a specific culture of people for being in that culture rather than for being demonically, violently evil.

To make it a genocide, you must ignore or change some of the 'facts' of the story because if the facts are accepted, there is no genocide, just a very large execution of criminals.

Peace, Ted

Are puppies criminals, Ted?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Babies are not babies in Ted's PCE. They had existed previous to creation and commited crimes in that life. Babies are not innocent here.

[ThePainefulTruth]

I submit that the single greatest act of immorality is recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis:
'So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.�'

In the 20th century, the most serious acts of genocide involved less than 1% of the human population. Examples are: the extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey, the extermination of Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and others by the Nazis, the extermination of the ethnic Albanians by the Serbs in Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia. The perpetrators have become the most hated of people. But the genocide resulting from the great flood is far more serious. It is recorded as having destroyed over 99% of the human race, leaving only eight humans alive.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#noah

First off, the flood story is a myth within a myth--that there was a flood, that God caused the flood, and why God caused the flood are all myths and lame ones at that.

Which is worse a hundred thousand or so of the 9 generations of Adam dying except for Noah (if you believe that myth), or 100-180 million being killed by 20th century socialist (fascist, communist) governments. Are we to judge the group-think percentage of a population more important, or are the number of actual individuals killed more so, if either is the case. Hitler and Stalin with a combined toll of 40 million are pikers compared to Mao who was responsible 49-78 million deaths.

Then there's the death toll due to disease that killed up to 95% of the indigenous population of the western hemisphere which preceded the advance of the Spanish--the breadth of which is just now being discovered. I guess we could back in the blame on God, but that was probably what happened with some flood 3-5 thousand years ago too.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Babies are not babies in Ted's PCE. They had existed previous to creation and commited crimes in that life. Babies are not innocent here.

The main problem I see with Ted's theology is that it ultimately ends up requiring that there are two groups of people on earth. Those called "The Elect", and those called the "non-Elect".

As I understand it the "non-Elect" have already basically been condemned no matter what. Salvation isn't even open for them anymore. My problem with this is why God bothered to even have those non-Elect babies born into this world? If they are already condemned then what are they being reincarnated for?

Also, (again as I understand it), even "The Elect" may potentially be condemned if they don't repent and become "saved". So ironically even "The Elect" aren't really elected for much of anything other than a shot at "salvation".

And finally, the whole thing seems to be somewhat absurd from the get go. I mean, if these people had already rejected God and refused to obey him then why should God think that they will change their minds given a second chance? Especially when they seem to have been raped of their memory of having rejected this God in the first place.

It seems to me that Ted's entire theology (and I realize this isn't really Ted's invention as there are Christian sects who buy into this theology), has serious problems. According to this theology the whole of Planet Earth is nothing but a "Second Chance Camp" for people who have already rejected God once already. And supposedly there are even people here on earth who aren't even eligible for a second chance anyway.

It seems to me to be highly problematic.

By the way, if we take the Great Flood into considering in this theology then we're even talking about giving these people a THIRD chance.

Noah and his family would have all needed to be "The Eject" otherwise why bother saving them from the flood?

Also, how does Jesus even begin to fit into this picture? If all these people before Christ where being given a second chance, and then a third chance after the flood, where would Jesus come into play?

If these people had already rejected Yahweh, and Jesus is Yahweh, then why would they change their minds for Jesus anymore than they would have changed their minds for Yahweh? It's the same God.

And what would this be now? A FOURTH chance at salvation?

Is this a trend? If this God keeps offering more and more chances at salvation why should anyone believe he would stop at giving only four chances? Four isn't even a particularly interesting or divine number. In keeping with the Bible this God is very likely to give people at least SEVEN chances since that seems to be his favorite number. So it seems like there ought to be at least three more chances for salvation coming up in the future somewhere.

It's just not a convincing theology to me. I think it's far more complicated than the standard orthodox Christian theology. Although neither of them are convincing.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 13 by ThePainefulTruth]

Of course it is a myth, as I explained in post 5, but to those who take it literally, "as recorded" in Genesis, then the decision to kill the entire population of the Earth, including animals is hard to top in the immorality department. Save God's repentance in this myth, he was going to kill every being on the Planet. So he only killed 99.999999%. No one else has a record like that. You're going to give this mythical God a pass down to 5th place on the list of the Greatest Immorals, solely because there was no one left to kill?

If one believes in the Genesis account literally, then this God is the ongoing sponsor of death by disease as well. It is HIS creatures, including homo sapiens, that are responsible for it all. And he knew it was going to happen ahead of time.

The problem isn't God, the problem is taking myths and legends for more than they are; that is, taking them literally as if they described actual events exactly as they happened. There may be a God of some sort, but the Genesis account anthropomorphizes this God, creating him in man's image. And it's not a very good image.

The Genesis account strikes me as a horrible bedtime story told to frighten the children so they wouldn't wet the bed. Likely it's had the opposite effect.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Babies are not babies in Ted's PCE. They had existed previous to creation and commited crimes in that life. Babies are not innocent here.

The main problem I see with Ted's theology is that it ultimately ends up requiring that there are two groups of people on earth. Those called "The Elect", and those called the "non-Elect".

As I understand it the "non-Elect" have already basically been condemned no matter what. Salvation isn't even open for them anymore. My problem with this is why God bothered to even have those non-Elect babies born into this world? If they are already condemned then what are they being reincarnated for?

Also, (again as I understand it), even "The Elect" may potentially be condemned if they don't repent and become "saved". So ironically even "The Elect" aren't really elected for much of anything other than a shot at "salvation".

And finally, the whole thing seems to be somewhat absurd from the get go. I mean, if these people had already rejected God and refused to obey him then why should God think that they will change their minds given a second chance? Especially when they seem to have been raped of their memory of having rejected this God in the first place.

It seems to me that Ted's entire theology (and I realize this isn't really Ted's invention as there are Christian sects who buy into this theology), has serious problems. According to this theology the whole of Planet Earth is nothing but a "Second Chance Camp" for people who have already rejected God once already. And supposedly there are even people here on earth who aren't even eligible for a second chance anyway.

It seems to me to be highly problematic.

By the way, if we take the Great Flood into considering in this theology then we're even talking about giving these people a THIRD chance.

Noah and his family would have all needed to be "The Eject" otherwise why bother saving them from the flood?

Also, how does Jesus even begin to fit into this picture? If all these people before Christ where being given a second chance, and then a third chance after the flood, where would Jesus come into play?

If these people had already rejected Yahweh, and Jesus is Yahweh, then why would they change their minds for Jesus anymore than they would have changed their minds for Yahweh? It's the same God.

And what would this be now? A FOURTH chance at salvation?

Is this a trend? If this God keeps offering more and more chances at salvation why should anyone believe he would stop at giving only four chances? Four isn't even a particularly interesting or divine number. In keeping with the Bible this God is very likely to give people at least SEVEN chances since that seems to be his favorite number. So it seems like there ought to be at least three more chances for salvation coming up in the future somewhere.

It's just not a convincing theology to me. I think it's far more complicated than the standard orthodox Christian theology. Although neither of them are convincing.

It's an image makeover. The PR guys have been working thru the Centuries to soften God's image. Except for Pat Robertson types, God no longer loses his temper and sends plagues upon his erring children for being what God made them. God is a good guy now, finding new ways not to impose the wrath of his rules upon them.

[ttruscott]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

...

Do you reject just retribution for evil in all cases or just in the cases about GOD acting as a judge or just in this case of HIM acting as the judge of retribution for evil?

...

Are babies criminals Ted?

Yes, human babies are all criminals against GOD's law by their own free will. As aeons old they are only new to earth and human bodies.

I admit that though most of Christianity believes in original sin, that is that all babies are sinful at conception or birth, many hesitate on grounds of political correctness to mention the implication that in GOD's sight they are indeed criminals to HIS laws in that that is what being a sinner means. I merely reject HIS creation of them as criminals, not their stats as criminals.

All my theology does is move the time of their becoming sinners to before their conception as humans (which is not their creation) and by their own free will as I do not accept that GOD creates anybody to be evil.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Do you reject just retribution for evil in all cases or just in the cases about GOD acting as a judge or just in this case of HIM acting as the judge of retribution for evil?

And who created all evil? God (apparently)...

GOD created no evil but allowed all of HIS creation to make true free will decisions so that those who wanted to love could have true love and those who wanted holiness could have true holiness but

the ability to have a free will allowed those who did not want love nor holiness as HE defined it since they had to accept HIM as their GOD to get it and they would not have anyone over them,

allowed these folk to create the first evil in all of creation. Free will is a necessity for true love and holiness, but it also allows for the creation of evil.

GOD created no evil since HE is holy:
- GOD did not need evil to fulfill HIS plan and did not create evil for any reason.
- All evil is creature-created by their true free will.

Our Free will:
- All spirits created in the image of GOD were created with the ability to make true free will decisions.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, human babies are all criminals against GOD's law by their own free will.

In my opinion, and I trust that of others, this is a TERRIBLE attitude toward newborn humans.

What is the purpose of such negativity? Is it to further some religious belief? If so why not choose a more positive and constructive religion -- or a more positive non-belief?

[ttruscott]

I submit that the single greatest act of immorality is recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis:

...

Do you reject just retribution for evil in all cases or just in the cases about GOD acting as a judge or just in this case of HIM acting as the judge of retribution for evil?

...

Peace, Ted

Ted, you redacted what I wrote, then started talking as if I wrote about genocide.
I wrote:

I submit that the single greatest act of immorality is recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis:
'So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.�'

Not a word about "genocide." According to Genesis, God said he was going to kill EVERYBODY. Not just this race or that, not one tribe, but ALL tribes. All of mankind, not to mention all animals for good measure. This is much worse than 'genocide' unless we can use 'genocide' to mean everyone, rather than its usual meaning which refers to murdering a particular ethnic or racial group.

Later in the story we see this "God" repent, and he agrees to save one single man and his family. One (1). And then he decides he'd lost his temper when it came to wiping out all the animals too, so he has Noah load them all into an "Ark."

This is clearly a made up story. It reads like a child's picture book.

BTW, I am not disrespecting this "God" because this story shows that this "God" does not exist. What happened was most likely a local flood and some self designated "Prophet" decided to use the event as an object lesson for his flock, so he could threaten them with "retribution for evil" just as you say.

If there is a God, then this story is an insult to Him.
Or rather, I should say "reading the Bible literally" is an insult to this great work of literature.

Peace Ted.

I quoted your phrase about immorality. I did not redact it. I redacted your quote that defined the immorality of the flood as genocide. Here is your full quote:

I submit that the single greatest act of immorality is recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis:
'So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.�'

In the 20th century, the most serious acts of genocide involved less than 1% of the human population. Examples are: the extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey, the extermination of Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and others by the Nazis, the extermination of the ethnic Albanians by the Serbs in Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia. The perpetrators have become the most hated of people. But the genocide resulting from the great flood is far more serious. It is recorded as having destroyed over 99% of the human race, leaving only eight humans alive.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#noah

Is it not logical to see the following reference to genocide as the content of the general word immorality which could other wise refer to a great many things? If you were not talking of genocide, why reference it? ???

Anyway my question still stands unanswered: Do you reject just retribution for evil in all cases or just in the cases about GOD acting as a judge or just in this case of HIM acting as the judge of retribution for evil?

since it applies whether the charge is the murder of the whole population of the earth or their genocide, whichever.

Made up story or not, in one interpretation HE is at best an emotionally out of control murderer and in the other HE is a righteous judge. Pretending that there is no contrasting interpretation is suspect and to pretend the antagonistic interpretation of the story proves something when the story itself does not support this interpretation, seems short sighted.

Isn't an interpretation of a story that does not follow the story but re-interprets by ignoring details in support of an agenda called a mis-interpretation?

Peace, Ted