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]

This argument comes up semi-regularly on this forum, but I have never been able to make much sense of it.

If we take the account in the sixth chapter of Genesis as worldwide flood or as a more localized event, it clearly describes God killing a specific group of people. But then, God kills everybody. Anyone who dies does so because God, at the very least, allows them to die. If someone dies in a flood sent by God, or dies in a flood when a dike breaks, or dies in childbirth, or dies from a heart attack, or dies in any fashion at all it is because God allowed it.

So what specifically is the issue you are upset with? Is it:

1. There is death at all?
2. Death is caused by drowning?
3. A large group of people died at the same time?
4. Some people die at a younger age than other people?
5. God sometimes explicitly states that He had a hand in certain deaths instead of sitting back and assuming that we will remember that He has a hand in all deaths?
6. This specific set of deaths as opposed to all others, and if so what makes this different in your mind?
7. Something else entirely, and if so what?

Without knowing what specifically you upset with it is hard to give a complete response.

I'm not so concerned with the idea of a God killing his own creation. If there exists a God who truly does represent some absolute morality and within that context he is somehow vindicated by killing his entire creation fine. However, I have extreme difficulties even with that scenario.

On the Issue of Morality

Since this is the main objection in this thread, I'll speak to the issue of morality.

Why continually create new souls in the babies of this evil culture? Why not just make everyone sterile? They wouldn't be able to have anymore babies and they would all be dead naturally within the span of a single generation.

The very idea that this God feels a need to rush and kill them all right now with a flood seems pretty desperate. Also, why wait until things had gotten this far out of control in the first place?

Why not act earlier to prevent this from getting so far out of hand. The Old Testament has God himself commanding men to stone the sinners to death amongst them for the specific purpose of "putting evil way from amongst you".

If God wants sinners to be killed why doesn't he do this himself on a regular basis? God is the only one who can know who is evil. God is omniscient, not man. The very idea that this God would allocate the killing of sinners to men who can't even know who's evil and who isn't seems to me to be very good reason to believe that these scriptures were actually written by men who knew that there is no omniscient omnipotent God. That's why they commanded their readers to kills "sinners".

Anyway, this may seem like it's getting away from the flood story, but it's not. After all why should a God have allowed things to get this far out of control in the first place? I think that is a very legitimate question.

On the Concept of Intelligent Solutions

Now, for me, other main reasons why I reject this flood story is because IMHO it's simply not an intelligent solution to begin with.

Like I've already pointed out: Why not nip it in the bud? Why allow things to get this far out of control in the first place? That's not intelligent IMHO.

Also, if we're going with the idea that it's already out of control then again: Why not just make them sterile? That would solve the problem within a single generation and not require the killing of any babies or animals.

Finally, if we're not going to nip it in the bud, and we're not going to stop placing "new souls" in the babies of this evil culture then why not do something more constructive as a solution?

I have offered the following:

Why not create a nursery instead of an ark?

Instead of having Noah and his family build an ark to save the animals from a flood, why not have Noah and his family build a nursery instead?

Then just turn on these evil people into pillars of salt, and have Noah and his family go around collecting all the leftover babies and innocent children and bring them back to the nursery? Surely that couldn't be anymore difficult than rounding up every species of animals over the whole globe.

I think that would have made for a far cuter story at least.

That would have been a story of a God who at least has mercy on babies.

But alas, that's not the Biblical story so there's no point in even pondering it. But the point is that the current Biblical story is simply not believable on any level.

So My Reasons for Rejecting the Flood Story are as follows:

1. It's not believable to me that a God would have allowed things to get this far out of control in the first place.

2. It's not believable to me that a God would have continue to place new souls in the babies of this horribly evil culture. Why would a God do such a thing?

3. It's not believable to me that a God would have used such a crude means of trying to solve this 'problem' either. I can imagine many far more intelligent solutions. And besides, according to the Bible this didn't end up solving the problem anyway. So it's an example of a God failing to solve a problem. Supposedly the world is still full of sin to this very day. Nothing was solved.

4. It's not believable to me that a God would be such a huge contradiction. And by this I mean that this story claims that God was sorry, and had 'repented' that he had ever created man. How in the world does this match up with the idea that this God has a Master Plan and everything is going according to that Master Plan? It clearly doesn't. On the contrary, this is a God who clearly has no Master Plan at all and is shocked and surprised that things didn't work out the way he had hoped. This is proof positive that these fables are nothing but poorly written fables.

5. And finally, we actually have evidence that no such global flood that reduced humans to just a handful of people has ever occurred. The human genome project has been able to trace mankind's DNA from out of Africa throughout the entire history up to modern man. Had there been a global flood at a time when men could build entire cities that reduced mankind to just a handful of people that bottle neck would show up in the genome history like a sore thumb. It's not there. On the contrary, just the opposite had been revealed.

So not only does this flood story not make any sense, but it clearly never happened and we have evidence that it never happened.

Therefore arguments that focus solely on trying to "justify" why a creator God could be somehow be morally sound whilst drowning out all of humanity including babies is futile anyway. I think that's a hard argument to make in any case, but even if such an argument could be made, we still have evidence that no such genetic bottleneck flood ever occurred in the development of humankind.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 40 by ttruscott]

Even if it were true that it is written that we are born evil, and I know of no biblical verse where God declares that to be so, I wouldn't believe it because it goes against our free will and would make our self-awareness superfluous.

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

This is enough for me to agree that we have no free will here on earth and because I believe in the necessity of free will, I contend we must have had our time of free will, before earth, before birth, in sheol.

Peace, Ted

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 38 by ttruscott]

'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.�'

For me Ted, this is just more evidence against your preexistence 'soul' theory.

If God had made these bodiless souls, and then he allowed them to inhabit bodies, He knew ahead of time that he would regret making them in the first place, as souls.

He also says all of the animals are evil and deserve to be 'blotted out.' In other words he repents of his entire creation. He does not need a flood to do this, BTW. He could have just killed all their souls with a stroke of his furrowed brow. How many absurdities and logical errors need to be piled up upon each other by taking these myths litterally before the light bulb turns on and someone says, "Baloney!"

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

...

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.

I was wondering if anyone would get this far. I've been here a looong time already.

So to set the stage for my answer. I do not ask it be judged by ordinary reality (which it isn't) but by a logical interpretation of what is written.

1. Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

This is very interpretive since what is written is: serpent H5175 was H1961 subtil H6175 beast H2416 field H7704... It seems to be a comparison between the serpent and the other beasts so is it less or is it more...Satan being less subtle than the beasts would make them very bad indeed but him being more subtil than the other beasts makes them only a little bit evil or at least, not as evil minded as he was, eh?

Anyone care to argue this cannot imply that the beasts in the garden were a little bit sinful? IF they were not subtil at all, this wording makes no sense. So in this verse we do have sinful animals in the garden which is a big enough jump for right now.

2. Gen 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!

Again we have a comparative list that makes no sense unless the ordinary choice of interpretation that the serpent's curse was stronger or above that of the other animals.. thou H859 hast done H6213 cursed H779 cattle H929 beast H2416 field H7704;

We all know about the Serpent's curse but has anyone pointed out the similar but lesser curse put upon the other sinful animals. Pretty hidden eh? Even more hidden than Adam and Eve being called subtil themselves but having it interpreted as naked, both being the same word.

Pretty weird? Just one more hop down this rabbit hole because we now come to the flood:

3. Gen 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.�
and
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.

Since we now have understand the animals were sinful then we see that HIS inclusion of the earth, v11 with the human race as "corrupt in HIS sight and was full of violence" is a reference to the sins of the animals.

[ASIDE: HIS regret in v6 and 7 is repenteth H5162 [to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted] and could easily be saying that the time had come when He consoled HIMself that HIS plan was finished and HE could bring this stage of things, the allowance of only evil non-elect into the world to prove to us all how they would then live, could come to an end. And they died as they lived, violently.]

Now I really see no need to believe this or make any point with it except when someone suggests that HE is guilty of unrighteousness to kill innocent animals in HIS judgment. Your point is valuable until I see in the text that they too were under judgement for their crafty evil and cursed like the serpent, only to a lesser degree.

Animals are sinful buggers too? Ok, well I guess we see evidence of that in the real world, so ok, they (and their young) are also deserving of a water death too. Except for the righteous ones that were welcomed onto the ark. coincidentally only two of each species of animal were the only righteous animals on the planet. They didn't rape and have premarital sex. They didn't kill. They didn't steal. They didn't commit other sins. They were the ones that had sex AFTER marriage, didn't commit adultery, didn't lust after their neighbor's wives, etc etc. They were the vegetarians of their species and didn't tear other animals apart with their teeth and claws. I guess I can go along with that.

Still, it seems like you're using a very bad comparison here. Well actually the bible is if you take it from a Christian perspective. Satan is not an animal, he is a spiritual being, so comparing him to other beasts created by God in the creation story just doesn't work. UNLESS Satan is a retrofit made by Christians and it really was a talking snake in the story and not Satan.

But ok, Animals are sinners. Were they also spiritual beings who were sent to earth to be born as animals as a punishment (not penance) from God? Are lambs, cockroaches, ants, kittens, and all the rest also repressing memories of sins they committed in spirit form?

[Divine Insight]

Still, it seems like you're using a very bad comparison here. Well actually the bible is if you take it from a Christian perspective. Satan is not an animal, he is a spiritual being, so comparing him to other beasts created by God in the creation story just doesn't work. UNLESS Satan is a retrofit made by Christians and it really was a talking snake in the story and not Satan.

That's an excellent point I never really caught that precise detail before.

I mean, I have always held that the story of God turning Satan into a snake that crawls on its belly and eats dirt originated from ancient tribal parents telling their children this story. I can just see them saying, "Now you don't want God to turn you into a snake do you? So you better be good!"

That's how this story most likely originally evolved.

But when you point out the fact, that the story has God cursing this evil Satan "above all other animals" that seems to imply that all animals must have then been naughty sentient beings at one time who had also been cursed and turned into animals.

This also flies in the face that God had created all these animals and "Saw that it was Good".

Clearly animals are not cursed souls. And therefore to say that Satan was cursed above all other animals is a dead give-away that someone is making up inconsistent fairytales.

So nice catch!

[OnceConvinced]

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

This is enough for me to agree that we have no free will here on earth and because I believe in the necessity of free will, I contend we must have had our time of free will, before earth, before birth, in sheol.

Peace, Ted

To support your beliefs it would have to read:

"Surely I was sinful BEFORE birth, sinful EVEN BEFORE the time my mother conceived me."

The fact this verse says we are sinful from the point of conception, contradicts the notion that we were spiritual beings before that point and that we first sinned then.

[OnceConvinced]

Still, it seems like you're using a very bad comparison here. Well actually the bible is if you take it from a Christian perspective. Satan is not an animal, he is a spiritual being, so comparing him to other beasts created by God in the creation story just doesn't work. UNLESS Satan is a retrofit made by Christians and it really was a talking snake in the story and not Satan.

That's an excellent point I never really caught that precise detail before.

I mean, I have always held that the story of God turning Satan into a snake that crawls on its belly and eats dirt originated from ancient tribal parents telling their children this story. I can just see them saying, "Now you don't want God to turn you into a snake do you? So you better be good!"

That's how this story most likely originally evolved.

But when you point out the fact, that the story has God cursing this evil Satan "above all other animals" that seems to imply that all animals must have then been naughty sentient beings at one time who had also been cursed and turned into animals.

This also flies in the face that God had created all these animals and "Saw that it was Good".

Clearly animals are not cursed souls. And therefore to say that Satan was cursed above all other animals is a dead give-away that someone is making up inconsistent fairytales.

So nice catch!

The entire God cursing all snakes thing all because of the talking snake, shows me that there was no Satan involved. Otherwise why curse snakes? It would be like going out and shooting all the cats in the neighbourhood because a guy in a cat suit peed on my living room rug. To me it's damning evidence that Christians have retrofitted the story, taking what was just a talking snake and turning it into Satan.

I see this and the other stories in early Genesis to be like "Just so stories." Someone looked at the top of their family tree, saw Adam and Eve were at the top and wondered why there was nobody above them. Then I'm guessing they figured it would be interesting to come up with an entertaining story about how Adam and Eve got there. Maybe they were the very first humans God created?

I wrote this on my website about the Fall of Man story:

The Fall of Man

[bluethread]

Still, it seems like you're using a very bad comparison here. Well actually the bible is if you take it from a Christian perspective. Satan is not an animal, he is a spiritual being, so comparing him to other beasts created by God in the creation story just doesn't work. UNLESS Satan is a retrofit made by Christians and it really was a talking snake in the story and not Satan.

That's an excellent point I never really caught that precise detail before.

I mean, I have always held that the story of God turning Satan into a snake that crawls on its belly and eats dirt originated from ancient tribal parents telling their children this story. I can just see them saying, "Now you don't want God to turn you into a snake do you? So you better be good!"

That's how this story most likely originally evolved.

But when you point out the fact, that the story has God cursing this evil Satan "above all other animals" that seems to imply that all animals must have then been naughty sentient beings at one time who had also been cursed and turned into animals.

This also flies in the face that God had created all these animals and "Saw that it was Good".

Clearly animals are not cursed souls. And therefore to say that Satan was cursed above all other animals is a dead give-away that someone is making up inconsistent fairytales.

So nice catch!

Your back and forth confusion between literal and figurative ignores the people to whom this record was first given. The snake myth was a predominant mythology in the ancient Mideast at the time of the Egyptian empire. The mythology of creation recorded in the beginning of HaTorah is a counter to that mythology. You probably see it as an adaptation. I see it as a correction. Either way, there is plenty of evidence that the purpose of the first few chapters is not to present a scientific or even realistic account, but a presentation of the nature of the things using the common imagery of the time.

[dianaiad]

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.

To all the people who constantly ask: "What's so bad about religions? Let people have their own believes, if it makes them feel happy. It doesn't harm anybody!"...
THIS is why people like me are against religions! Because it is very, very hard to make an actually sane, and otherwise moral person, to make such inhuman and scary statements like that... unless you have a religion that forces you into that position! Then, suddenly, people will say such horrible things, and will actually be backed up, or at least protected by other people who say "Well, it's their personal faith"!

Imagine under any other context, somebody would say: "Human babies deserve a horrible death by drowning. That's justice"!
Would you respect such a person? Would you even consider such a person to be sane?
Of course not!

If you wonder what harm religions can do, read the entire poste by this guy. It will open your eyes, about what harm religions can do to your brain.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make personal comments about, or address, the writer of a post. Make your points by addressing the points written about. As well, this post is violating the rules against ranting.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your back and forth confusion between literal and figurative ignores the people to whom this record was first given.

"Given"???? Who gave what record? Evidence, substantiation, verification? Or is it just opinion and dogma?"

The snake myth was a predominant mythology in the ancient Mideast at the time of the Egyptian empire. The mythology of creation recorded in the beginning of HaTorah is a counter to that mythology. You probably see it as an adaptation. I see it as a correction.

Snake mythology made its way into Judaism and Christianity from earlier sources – which seems to indicate that Christianity is an evolved religion rather than anything unique or anything associated with a unique "god."

Which mythology is preferable and why?

Either way, there is plenty of evidence that the purpose of the first few chapters is not to present a scientific or even realistic account, but a presentation of the nature of the things using the common imagery of the time.

Is there any compelling reason that people in the 21st Century should accept or "believe in" myths or imagery commonly believed thousands of years ago? Note: we now know that diseases are not explained by "curses from gods" and droughts are not punishment for sins (or, at least, many people understand that of medicine and meteorology -- though some cling to ancient beliefs).

Hasn't human knowledge and understanding progressed beyond pagan and Christian myths and folklore of that era? Evidently not for many people