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

[Divine Insight]

.

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?

I agree. And we're being asked to believe this as a matter of pure faith?

Why in the world would anyone want to believe on pure faith that they are a criminal who has already rejected God before they were even born? That is an absolutely negative thing for anyone to want to believe as a matter of pure faith.

It's seriously ridiculous.

Also, when I was a very young child, I did have feelings that I had always existed even before this life. I also had a feeling that there was a God watching over me. But those feelings were not negative. On the contrary they were very positive feelings. If anything I got a sense that God was very pleased with me. And I also felt that my past lives had gone well too. There was absolutely nothing in my innate feelings that I had ever done anything wrong or was in the doghouse with God.

So asking me to believe as a matter of faith that I was a criminal in my past lives and I hate God and have rejected God makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Why in the world would I want to believe such a negative thing as a matter of pure faith?

Gee whiz, if I'm going to place my faith in something I'd much rather believe that my past lives where very positive and that God is pleased with me.

Why would I ever want to place my faith in the idea that I'm in an adversarial relationship with God?

That's nothing short of crazy.

[Danmark]

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

The relevance is that genocide as listed in the quote, referred to mass killing that involved less than 1% of the human population. God's plan, according to Genesis, was to go for 100%.
Killing everyone on earth speaks for itself. Is there some interpretation of God "blotting out" all of humanity that does not involve him killing everyone save Noah?

I don't understand the reference to Jesus, unless you are saying Jesus is God. He is not. How can someone who wants to save people also be the same one who wants to kill them all?

If Jesus and God are one, then there is all the more reason not to take the story of the flood literally. I've never been able to square the two images. Just one more reason not to take the doctrine of the trinity seriously. It is self refuting.

[higgy1911]

But the point is the flood is not Just Retribution.

Take all the babies who were killed in the flood. I know you would say that they too are criminals, however does not the fact that they were on the earth at that time as babies indicate they had been judged already? Were all those babies beyond redemption? None elect? If so why put them on earth to be killed again?

And besides that I'm not entirely sure the whole system can be defended morally. Giving someone a second chance is fine but if you take their memories and the ability to learn from past mistakes it seems like it's not a second chance just a second punishment.

[ttruscott]

.

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?

Yes it is a powerful idea this idolatry of babies by faith in the innocence of infants. I do remember it from my bad years as one of the strongest reasons to reject GOD.

It is not a negative idea but a hopeful one in that without being born as human no sinner can be saved. Of course everything about YHWH is negative if HIS claims to divinity are rejected. Many Christians have no negativity in this doctrine because they accept all babies at face value, being unable to tell one's status with GOD so all are treated as brothers in the church.

Peace, Ted

[bluethread]

As humans we have an natural affinity for our offspring and, in this culture, we also have a similar affinity for puppies. This is how it should be. However, the argument that a deity must share that affinity is again nothing more than anthropomorphizing. One can just as easily say, "What about all of those poor spiders, cockroaches and maggots. What did they ever do other than act as they were designed."

[wiploc]

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".

"Reprobates" is the term for the non-elect. At least as I learned it in school.

[OnceConvinced]

And even if we include non-violent "crimes" right down to including things like traffic violations and even parking tickets, etc., the crime rates are still only something like 10% of the population, maybe 20% if we really stretch it. But still that leaves 80% to 90% of the people who don't even do anything wrong. At least not on a continual and intentional basis. I mean, I just got a speeding ticket myself about a week ago. My first speeding ticket in decades. We all make mistakes. But I don't typically rush around intentionally speeding on a regular basis.

The point is that in reality, the world is really full of good people far outnumbering the bad people without a doubt.

.

The problem is that the bible declares that even thinking about doing some things is evil. Also things like pride, lust and all that are evil too and some will say equally as evil as genicide. It's this whole concept of sin. I'm sure that to some Christians out there even picking your nose is a sin, worthy of God's judgement. Hell you only have to hate somone and that from a bible perspective is equal to murder!

So by the biblical veiwpoint (even if you ignore Ted's take on it), everyone is evil in some way, no matter how minor we might think the infraction is.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

A problem I see is that a righteous judge would normally be employed by the people to judge the people. God was never given this job to judge by the people of the world. As for God being righteous that is another debate altogehter. I see very little righteous about the God of the bible.

One may argue that he is God, he created us, so he has the right to judge us, but that doesn't make him a righteous judge, just a dictator who forces his will on the people, much like the ones we have seen on this planet.

I very much doubt any righteous judge would condemn even animals to a horrific and terrifying watery death. Just the fact that he would, proves he is not righteous.

Ted, a question. If you believe that we were born on this earth kind of as a penance for our evil, why would God then decided to wipe everyone out with a flood? Isn't that like double jeapordy? Babies in paticular, fresh out of the womb have really had no opportunity to commit any new sins, but yet your God decides he's gonna drown them. So he punishes them twice for their evil. How is that righteous? How is that just? How is it moral?

[Divine Insight]

Yes it is a powerful idea this idolatry of babies by faith in the innocence of infants. I do remember it from my bad years as one of the strongest reasons to reject GOD.

Peace, Ted

I can't help but ask, "Why did you believe in this negative picture on pure faith?"

You talk about your "bad years" and this was a strong reason for you to "reject GOD".

That sounds like you actually believed in a God during your "bad years" and was choosing to purposefully "reject" him.

But this sort of scenario simply doesn't apply to everyone.

I have never had anything that I would refer to as my "bad years". I'm not sure what you even mean by that. I could mean that you were doing what you consider to be "bad things", or it could simply mean that during that time you felt as though a lot of "bad things" were happening to you.

I have never experienced either of those two scenarios. There was never a time in my life that I can point to where I was doing what I consider to be "bad things", nor was there a time in my life when I feel that an abnormally "bad things" were happening to me exclusively.

So I certainly don't share your experience in this life on either of those two counts.

I also never, at any time, felt that I was ever "rejecting GOD". Even to this very day, Christians may think that I'm "rejecting God" because I reject Hebrew mythology. But I most certainly don't think of rejecting Hebrew mythology as "rejecting God" anymore than I think of rejecting Greek mythology as "rejecting God".

There has never been a time in my entire life when I can say that I was ever "rejecting God". In fact, I've never even truly become an atheist in the most general sense of the term. I cannot see the universe as being just some sort of freak accident of material stuff. That simply makes no sense to me. I have tried very hard to look at the world through purely atheistic glasses and I just can't see it. It just doesn't make any sense to me as being a freak accident of some "stuff" that just happens to exist.

I mean, after all, if "stuff" can just happen to exist for no good reason, then why not a god (or at least some sort of mystical being?)

In other words, for me, a purely materialistic universe isn't any different at all from a purely spiritual universe. In a very real sense they are both pretty absurd, but since we are here having this experience one of them must be true. The mere fact that we are actually having this experience suggests to me that the latter is true (i.e. some sort of mystical magic is indeed going on).

That seems to be the case in a purely secular universe anyway.

But my point is, that I have never really "rejected" the idea of a God. And I have most certainly never rejected any God that represents all that his "Good".

On the contrary, the very reason I reject Hebrew mythology is precisely because as far as I can see it's NOT good.

~~~~~

The only thing I have to say, is that when you speak of your "bad years" that means nothing to me, because for me in my life, I've never even had any experience of "bad years". So why should I base my theology on YOUR experiences?

I see absolutely no reason to believe that I am at odds with any supposedly divine creator. If there indeed does exist a divine creator I can't imagine any reasons why it wouldn't be absolutely pleased with me.

The idea that it should be chomping at the bit to cast me into a state of eternal damnation is simply absurd to me. It wouldn't be a "GOOD" God, it he's behaving like that as far as I can see.

I mean if choosing all that is GOOD, is the same as choosing GOD, then clearly I choose God. Period.

Suggesting that I'm "rejecting God" just because I don't buy into very negative mythologies about gods is pure nonsense.

So there is absolutely no reason in the world why I should be interested in your theology. Your theology is based on hating and rejecting God actually.

You have to hate God and reject God first before your theology makes any sense. Apparently it makes sense to you because it's been your experience during your "bad years" to hate and reject God. So it's no wonder this theology makes some sense to you. But it certainly doesn't make any sense to me.

And it wouldn't make any sense to anyone else who hasn't experienced "bad years" when they passionately "rejected God".

It seems to me that that kind of experience is a prerequisite for embracing your theology. But it's certainly not an experience that is going to be common to everyone.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have never had anything that I would refer to as my "bad years". I'm not sure what you even mean by that. I could mean that you were doing what you consider to be "bad things", or it could simply mean that during that time you felt as though a lot of "bad things" were happening to you.

I have never experienced either of those two scenarios. There was never a time in my life that I can point to where I was doing what I consider to be "bad things", nor was there a time in my life when I feel that an abnormally "bad things" were happening to me exclusively.

So I certainly don't share your experience in this life on either of those two counts.

DI, perhaps the absence of "bad years" or "bad events" in your life (as true in mine also) accounts for you (us) not being attracted to religion. If we needed "hope" or needed to look forward to "better times" in an "afterlife" religion might have appealed at least somewhat.

It is also possible that we have had experiences similar to those that devastated, depressed or discouraged others -- but we simply brushed ourselves off and carried on without feeling any need for supernatural beliefs to give us "hope" or divine intervention to "get us through."