No. You do. Or is it literal?So he says, not me
Alternatively, as the human race advances (though I am not sure how that is relevant to how a god would look upon our behaviour - does evil mature?) it changes how it looks upon it's gods. It's called progressive shoehorning. I don't doubt that Christ started a new religion and I don't doubt that the two god's look entirely different.Christ inaugurated a new covenant. There is no NT verse that promotes violence of any kind that I can think of. As for the same God idea. As it is with an individual child so it is with the human race. It is called progressive revelation. As the Human race advances God may change the way he relates to us yet he never changes.
Well, no - again. Spanking is one thing, genocide is another. This was a punishment for it's own sake for those that died, there was no-one left save the righteous few who did not need guidance. It might be a deterent to future generations but serves no purpose to those he is chastising, this in no way compares to parentingThe same way a parent my spank a pre-teen child for doing something as he grows it may become acceptable. As for the flood in particular, literally or symbolically I guess in your infinite wisdom you would have let the sad twisted tale of a race gone insane commit atrocities for a thousand generations. I said God requires that we do not take life without justification. I do not know what to point to that proves he could not do so but that isn't the issue. The issue is that he had morally justified reasons to start over. It is really pointless to debate something the true nature of is unknown. It is like discussing what type of Governments extra-terrestrials favor.
That is why I addressed both possibilities.
I wasn't really talking about the animals though that may not have been clear, I was talking about humans on all inhabited continents. Clearly you accept the guilt of the unborn children, the young children and the adults of the entire globe in your interpretation of why a god would be justified in wiping out species, otherwise this god killed innocents for this gods own ends. Is this what you are saying (whether it happened or not)??I am not a biologist and find classifications made up out of this air meaningless. Wait a minute are you saying God is terrible because he killed deer and chickens. We do the same thing. God made the animals and it is well within his sovereignty to do with them as he pleases
Clearly. Though by suggesting that they are two separate issues are you saying that his morality conflicts with you own? Otherwise how could you recognise the difference? Is it do as I say or do as I do?I really do not know by what standards it may be determined what God may or may not do. I do however have standards that may or may not allow me to follow him. They are two separate issues.
Yes, it can. It's not even hard. Killing all humans around the entire globe is moraly unjustifiable. Go figure....You seem to be suggesting that if you find a thing undesirable that has something to do with it's reality.
It cannot be shown that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for what he did.
You're confusing me with someone else, I am not arguing at all about the existence of your god or even myself, just that the negativity is relevant and should be judged by humans. If the bible is interpretive then it can only be judged by humans. If it is literal then it cannot.You and I both have killed hundreds of thousands of "innocent" insects and other creatures with our cars, for food, and hunting if you do. Do you wish your child to reject that you exist because of that? That makes no sense. This is really a meaningless line of reasoning. It starts from an unknown point and just gets worse. You are making reality determinations based of desirability of actions you have no access to critique. You might as well say that you reject Jupiter because it is Red and you have decided it has no right to be red.
Originally Posted by 1robin
That being said as far as the Bible goes I believe you are probably exaggerating the negative actions approved of by God. First the NT which supersedes the OT for Christians contains nothing but turn the other cheek, peace, and love. Only the OT has an eye for an eye or things like that but it has not applied in 2000 years. Regardless if you understand the OT many of those hard teachings are easily resolvable and are much more benign than many critics believe it to be. List some and we can discuss it.
I have no conclusion and I would not base any belief or lack of it on the veracity (or the morality) of Noah's flood. Nor would I base any belief or lack of it on whether it matched my morality or not (why on earth would I?). However, I see no reason whatsoever of not asking what I believe to be pertinent questions of those who do believe that the actions of their genocidal god are justified. Should we not ask this direct question of every other person who wields any sort of power at all? I certainly do.There could just as well be an evil God that would torture all creation. He would be just as real even if evil. Or there could be a God that gave life and is perfectly justified taking it for any reason even if he denies that right to creatures who did not give that life in the first place. Or we could have the God of the Bible who has promised to act consistent with his revelation but who says we being limited fallible creatures many times will not understand what he is doing. Your conclusion does not follow your premise and your premise is based on very shaky and unknowable ground. It has no explanitory power or scope.
BTW. I apologise for the tardiness of my replies, I am away a lot at the moment.
Last edited: