Bring on World War 3. . .

[achilles12604]

I had an ephinany in church today. I believe I have decided for myself who's side God is on.

But I wanted to throw this out into the water and see where it goes for a bit first.


So the question for debate is this. . .


Who's side is God on? What makes you believe that this is true?

Considering the amount of suffering, poverty, crime, genocide, pestilence, disease, wars, starvation, subjugation, rapes, molestations, etc.... that currently exist globally, I really have to wonder which side He is on as well. If I had to judge it based on humanity, I would have to say that God is on the side of those who would cause harm because He sure isn't providing much protection to those who are trying to do good. But this is strictly MHO.

This made me think. Is the world REALLY this screwed up? Or is the world still decent enough to warrant living in?

If it is as described above, then would it not be better to simply start world war 3, have every launch Nukes, and if any one survives they can start over with a clean (albeit radioactive) slate?

Is this world worth keeping?

[achilles12604]

I think it was an event which had significance attached to it by men. Nothing more.

This is your view concerning all the OT events?

Some. It depends on the circumstances.

I however, do not generally defend the OT at all as it is not my faith.

[zepper899]

Alrighty, but before I do, I have to "razor" this one up. What do you find more likely... that a mythology was built around a natural disaster, or that the mythology is not mythology, but indeed historical fact (with all its implications, and there are quite a few)? With this in mind, do you think the thread makes an atheist think that the latter is more likely?

perhaps both?
i've done a bunch of work on pre-biblical society so...many believed that teh world ended around their homeland. mountains, seas, deserts: many things could prevent exploration. in the case of the flood, my hangup. if indeed teh biblical flood story is based on mesopotamian society. i think that among religious historians, this is accpeted (the name noah is even derived from the mesopotamian name "atrahasis", look it up if you so desire). they lived inbetween the euphratis and tigris, a floodland. it would not take much for a big flood to really produce chaos in their society. if they had a story regarding a flood passed down generations orally, as most myths do, could one not exaggerate? this may then have a religious interpretation superimposed over it, as teh mesopotamians do. in fact, they have a very similar plot "bad people, one person must rebuild world, etc." seems to be both historically and religiously appropriate. maybe not context?