God kills

[Youkilledkenny]

In a recent post in another thread, it was asked of another poster:"You were OK with him (God) drowning babies in the flood?" to which the response was "Yes entirely justified. Completely agree with what God did, good move."

It strikes me as more than alarming that a person (or people or group of people) be "ok" with this scenario. Picture a woman giving birth when a wall of water sweeps through her village, drowning her and the partially born baby immediately. Or a family watching their child take its first steps while water rushes them without it being seen in time to react (not that would have made much difference and the almighty wanted them dead).

It seems the only other worse way to kill someone slowly would be burning them alive.


Of course if "God wants you dead" there's nothing you can do about it if you're a believer in such things. It's not as if we could protest en mass in front of God's throne and make him change his mind.
But the actual state of 'being OK with it' (or even being happy about it as some most certainly are) - is that something we should accept about ourselves as a species? Being "ok" with a supreme being violently, torturously and barbarically eliminating life in such a way?
Surely a supreme being could be able of ending life in a much more 'sedate' way. Drowning seems to be a very vengeful thing - something not worthy of praise (IMO anyway).

Are we, as human beings, supposed to be "ok" with God killing another in such a terrible way? Should we rejoice when these types of things happen? What does this say about us when we reach that level? And would we be as "ok" with it if it was one of our own family members or loved ones?
And does this point to a more (perhaps hidden) violent aspect of ourselves?

Or is it a "God did it WOO HOO!" way of thinking we are, as God's creation, commanded to accept?

[William]

I thought the flood was proven to be something which did not happen?

Are you questioning the integrity of those who can calmly accept the story of a GOD who could actually have done something like that, even though the flood didn't actually happen?

If anyone were to say they were okay with an action of a GOD who would flood the world I would be suspect of their integrity myself, and interested in their reasoning behind it.

But even so, I wouldn't let that interfere with my thinking that GOD could still exist. All the better that science apparently has provided evidence that no flood occurred.

[marco]

And does this point to a more (perhaps hidden) violent aspect of ourselves?

Or is it a "God did it WOO HOO!" way of thinking we are, as God's creation, commanded to accept?

I don't think that it indicates violence in believers; it shows how dangerous it is to abandon reason in favour of "love" for God. The believer is often a well-meaning, harmless person. The Bible commends a brute for attempting to murder his son "because God told him to." There is no difference between this and some modern African woman murdering her child because the child was "possessed."

When love of God allows us to believe that it is somehow right for God to destroy children then love of God is wrong. When love of Allah tells people to behead others then love of Allah is wrong. To be safe, we might be better off refraining from offering any sort of love to the great spirit world; a wise spirit would understand.

[1213]

In a recent post in another thread, it was asked of another poster:"You were OK with him (God) drowning babies in the flood?" to which the response was "Yes entirely justified. Completely agree with what God did, good move."

It strikes me as more than alarming that a person (or people or group of people) be "ok" with this scenario. ...

Shouldn’t it be more alarming that people support abortion and abort babies all the time and support also euthanasia?

[marco]

Shouldn’t it be more alarming that people support abortion and abort babies all the time and support also euthanasia?

Reality is more alarming than fiction, certainly. The tales of God flooding the planet and somehow destroying Sodom and Gomorrah are unimportant if people don't believe them. If they are just like a Hans Andersen tale, then they are not alarming at all but modern human behaviour IS relevant, and often both alarming and terrifying.

[William]

And does this point to a more (perhaps hidden) violent aspect of ourselves?

Or is it a "God did it WOO HOO!" way of thinking we are, as God's creation, commanded to accept?

I don't think that it indicates violence in believers; it shows how dangerous it is to abandon reason in favour of "love" for God. The believer is often a well-meaning, harmless person. The Bible commends a brute for attempting to murder his son "because God told him to." There is no difference between this and some modern African woman murdering her child because the child was "possessed."

When love of God allows us to believe that it is somehow right for God to destroy children then love of God is wrong. When love of Allah tells people to behead others then love of Allah is wrong. To be safe, we might be better off refraining from offering any sort of love to the great spirit world; a wise spirit would understand.

You miss out a vital part of that story, which in itself misrepresents the whole, especially when you align it with other stories which don't have that part in them.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 2 by William]

I thought the flood was proven to be something which did not happen?

While that's debatable, this would assume the story was real and accurate.

I wouldn't let that interfere with my thinking that GOD could still exist.

Agreed.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 4 by 1213]

Shouldn’t it be more alarming that people support abortion and abort babies all the time and support also euthanasia?

Maybe the flood was God's abortion plan in ancient times?

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by William]

I thought the flood was proven to be something which did not happen?

While that's debatable, this would assume the story was real and accurate.

Are you saying that when atheists use the claim that the flood is a myth because science has proven that there was no such flood as argument, that they are wrong to do so because it is still something which can be debated? (hasn't actually been proven as claimed?)

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 9 by William]

I'm saying that not everyone agrees with your claim and, regardless, that's not what this thread is intended to discuss.