| Drowning everyone and everything in the world except for eight people and two of every animal is morally good. |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by SuperFlyNinjaGuy  United Kingdom |
|
About
|
6 Points
|
Yay Genocide(!!)
I strongly Agree with that.
Why?
If you form the question like that, then no. (I agreed). But if you form it like it was when it actually happened then yes. God made the world perfect, to worship Him. Then His creation totally turned their back on him and turned to wickedness. Only eight people worshiped him, so He fixed the problem. God created life, He has all the right to take it.
If he was perfect, then he wouldn't require worship, or even want it. If he made the world perfect, then why did he make mosquitoes? Volcanoes? Earthquakes? Unnecessary death and suffering? Doesn't sound perfect to me.
If you have a baby, you made that life, do you have the right to kill that baby's life at any time for whatever reason? No, so he doesn't have the right to take life anyway either.
There are several counter-arguements for the Noah's Ark story, including:
1. This story assumes that a perfectly loving Omnibenevolent God killed the whole human population including innocent babies and children. A perfectly just God judges that these babies and children deserved death by drowning.
2. There are millions of known animal species in the world; it would take an impossibly large ship to hold representatives of all species, not to mention food for at least a year.
3. Assuming that Noah did not take two of each species, but two of each "kind", that still requires an awfully rapid evolution explosion to account for the biological diversity today. If all creatures on earth were destroyed some five thousand years ago in the Great Flood, it would require incredibly fast evolution to cause, for instance, the dog "kind" to produce both dire wolves and Chihuahuas. If we take a very conservative estimate of 1 million species that descended from creatures on Noah's ark, and assume that 16,000 "kinds" of animal were on the ark, each "kind" would have had to evolve into over 62 species in the 4000 years since Noah's flood.
4. The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how did marsupials wind up in Australia, and only in Australia?
5. The story of Noah is not the first Middle Eastern deluge story. The story told by Utnapishtim in "The Epic of Gilgamesh", in which the god Enlil and other deities drown the world to rid it of evil, is referred to as far back as 2000 B.C.E. Its most complete version comes from tablets dated between 669 and 633 B.C.E. The modern book of Genesis was not compiled for another 200 years.
6. The Deluge would have meant the resetting of DNA lines for nearly every living thing on earth. All DNA lines should curiously and rapidly narrow to small breeding populations located in the Middle East. Ignoring every other creature on earth, we can say with some confidence, that human DNA lines appear to originate in Africa. Most lines do not appear to have stopped in the middle east 4000 to 5000 years ago.
7. The Deluge, according to available time lines, occurred between 2348 B.C.E. and 2150 B.C.E. It should have represented a clear historical breaking point for every civilization around the world. No such breaking point exists. The river of history appears to have continued flowing uninterrupted through the Great Flood.
8. Once the animals got off the ark, they would have nothing to eat. All the plants would have died in the flood, so the herbivores would have nothing to eat. The carnivores would wipe them out anyway, and then they would die too.
9. Creationists often claim that there were only babies of each species and only seeds of each plant on the ark, but then this would require a time for them to grow. For every ten units of mass on one level of the food chain, only one unit of mass can be created on the next level. That means for a lion, which weighs over 400 pounds, to become fully grown, he needs to eat 4,000 pounds of meat, and that animal would have to eat 40,000 pounds of plant to get that much weight.
10. The Deluge cannot explain the distribution of fossils in the fossil record, for example why dinosaur fossils only appear in lower rock layers that can be dated to be at least 65 million years old, and trilobites only appear in rocks that are dated to at least 250 million years ago, while human fossils only appear in the highest rock layers, radiometrically dated to the past couple million years.
...to name a few.
well put.
I always find it strange how the new testament preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, while the old testament, God didn't even give a warning, he just kills people that are not doing what he wants them to do. He made people, he could just as easily reprogram them if they are not to his liking.
Besides, what kind of "perfect" being needs to get worshiped? Pretty far from perfect to throw a petty fit and drown the planet for not bowing down to him.
It's a story. Not even one that is very original. Gilgamesh tells almost the exact same thing and it's been shown that floods at the time were common and far from worldwide. But it's not like they had satellites to know what was going on or explanations for natural disasters. Tornado killed your family? Must have upset God. Perhaps you didn't sacrifice enough goats.
There you go again; presenting your opinion as fact.
1st sentence) "If he was perfect, then he wouldn't require worship" How do you know that? What if it does require worship to maintain Godhood. You don't know and neither does anyone else.
1) You can't assume that unless you deny the existence of a soul. I know that you don't believe in souls, but it's stupid to assume the minority opinion can accurately reflect the mind of God. Your assumptions behind that statement assume that God does not exist. That's as poor an argument as a Christian spouting scripture at you.
2) You can't read written history from 3,000 years ago like it was written yesterday. It wasn't written like that. If you've tried to read Shakespeare like a movie script, you have some kind of idea how difficult that is. Now multiply that difficulty times 10 and you will have some kind of idea how impossible it is to read the Old Testament as word for word history. There are several theories of Biblical history that continue to develop as we become better at archeology and analysis of ancient materials. None of them include the sphere we know as the world being covered with water.
3) The same comment holds true of animal species. One of the theories of Biblical history point out that Noah's people (and the Persians) did not have a separate word for for domestic animals and wild animals. You have to assume a meaning that is highly unlikely for that time and place. It makes much more sense that Noah included all the domestic animals and game animals in the area.
4) See "2)" above.
5) The two stories mentioned are only superficially similar. It's like complaining that basketball is a takeoff on the Mayan Ball game. The Mayan Ball Game was a religious experience that had great rewards for the winners and deadly consequences for the losers. Basketball is a game thought up to improve American fitness in the winter. James Naismith, Physician and Presbyterian minister at the YMCA Training School in Springfield, Massachusetts, USA, invented basketball in 1891. The concept of basketball was born from Naismith's school days in the area where he played a child's game known as duck-on-a-rock outside his one-room schoolhouse. The game involved attempting to knock a "duck" off the top of a large rock by tossing another rock at it. It had no relation to Mayan Ball, but has more similarities than Gilgamesh and Noah.
6) See "2)" above.
7) See "2)" above. No one knows when the "flood" took place. Speculation about it being when the Mediterranean was filled or when Atlantis was destroyed is every bit as factual as 2350 BCE. (Which is to say that it is speculation, not fact.)
8) See "2)" above. Remember that no one knows the extent or time of the "flood".
9) Forget what creationists say. It ignores science and betrays a lack of Faith.
10) If it came after the dinosaurs and trilobites were mostly extinct, it would have nothing to do with fossil records.
To conclude; 7 of your 10 points ignored biblical history. Your last 2 erroneously assume heretical creationists speak for Christianity. Your first point assumes the existence of God and the non-existence of souls. That is a logical inconsistency that renders your comment nonsensical.
Firstly, if it required worship to maintane his status, then he wouldn't be perfect, by definition.
1) "You can't assume that unless you deny the existence of a soul"? What do souls or lack thereof have to do with it? I didn't mention souls there at all, and killing millions of children isn't morally good, souls or not.
2) Ok.... how do you think I'm supposed to read it? Are the translations we have today inaccurate?
3) "It makes much more sense that Noah included all the domestic animals and game animals in the area." Right, and how many species would that be?
4) See 2.
5) Yes, but how do you know which one, if any, took place? Why is the Noah story regarded as truth, but this one is not?
6) See 2.
7&8) Of course no-one knows when the flood took place, because it's as if it never happened at all.
9) Okay Dokie, but a lack of faith is a good thing. Faith is mindless and unintelligent, but that's another topic all together.
10) Number 10 is an arguement against a common claim that the flood makes it look like as if the dinosaur fossils appear to be millions of years older than they actually were.
In conclusion, "biblical history" seems to change depending what the individual beliefs, so no matter what you or I say, I'm ignoring someone's view on "biblical history". And sometimes creationists do speak for christianity, we all know they're some of the loudest out of those in the religious industry. The first point says that the STORY assumes the existance of god, and nothing about souls came into that at all.
Most stupid question ever!
What's wrong with it?
i totally agree
What's wrong with it??
he put the question totally out of context, making it lose the meaning that it could have had
Ok, how would you ask it? And what meaning did it lose?
Not good enough Mabie. If you think the question 'stupid' you must explain why.
For my part I think it fortunate that this murderous bastard does not exist.
This Old Testament God that you guys describe never did exist. I'm glad I know the one I know.
"This Old Testament God that you guys describe never did exist." I agree.
You "know" god, do you? Does he communicate with you at all? And what does he say?
What i want to know how is how excactly he got the 2-30 million animal species into one single boat.
Though no one knows for sure, One of the theories of Biblical history point out that Noah's people (and the Persians) did not have a separate word for for domestic animals and wild animals. You have to assume a meaning that is highly unlikely for that time and place to include 2-30 million. It makes much more sense that Noah included all the domestic animals and game animals in the area. That would have been about 160 pairs of animals.
They just survived without the boat then? Or did god just recreate them? why have 160 animals on a boat to begin with then?
And is nobody else noticing the amount of incest and inbreeding it requires to populate earth with only two of each animal? o.O
My belief is that there really was a boat. The dimensions were clear and concise.
The point of the story was that there were things and people worth saving. 320 animals would make that point.
How did we get from 160 species of animals to 15 million species in only a few thousand years?