And given the events after the flood was over, can't we conclude that god should have wiped out Noah's family too? They weren't exactly shining examples of humanity.
Noah had faith, but he did not earn God's favor by good deeds, no one does. You are saved by undeserved grace and then your love of God causes you to do good deeds. Noah was chosen because of his faith, and this was probably true of his children as well.
Don't you think it's a tad anachronistic to read Protestantism into Genesis?
I'd suggest your god should have saved some Buddhists.
Buddhists did not exist 2 mya.
Homo sapiens didn't exist two million years ago. If you're suggesting that Noah was a specimen of Homo habilis, you'd better keep in mind that Homo habilis was utterly incapable of building an ocean liner.
But again, your god is incompetent. It couldn't create humans that could resist temptation, and didn't create a world that didn't have to be wiped out to start again. As we see, the net effect didn't improve. Your god killed all those people (including little infants) for no good.
He wanted free will beings not robots. He needed this type of universe and this event to help in His ultimate goal of destroying evil. So they died for ultmately a good purpose.
He could easily have created "free will beings" to whom it never would have occurred to do wrong. You obviously have some grave misconceptions about free will. As for the idea that he needed to create a universe with evil in it in order to destroy evil . . . well, that's a bit whacked, isn't it? He could have just created a universe without evil.
People should cease all belief in what gods want. Simply notice when fellow beings are in pain. That alone tells what is not right conduct.
Why is pain bad? And how do you know these things?
Pain is not necessarily bad, but pain caused by another human whether physical or mental is bad, in fact positively immoral for the one inflicting the pain.
I know these things because I am an intelligent social animal, and inflicting pain on others of your kind is a genetic prohibition.
You will note that of your 10 commandments 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are commanding not to inflict mental pain on others with certain others enumerated. And 6 commands that you not inflict physical pain. This is simply God adopting basic human morality to Herm needs. No one needs God to do this and in fact the only thing God does is carve out tribal exceptions to this basic human morality. See the rest of the Old Testament and all of Paul.
An unindoctrinated human will have not inflicting pain of any kind on others as a basic component of herm conscience which is the term we give to the genetic imperatives of living as an intelligent social animal.
Too often I see politics and religion alienating us from other members of the human race. It is more the norm.
"He didn't allow the hebrews to do those things. He allows others to do them in order to accompish His greater good of destroying evil in the universe. Sometimes bad things have to happen to accomplish a greater good."
Well, according to the Bible God creates all of the evil.
Sometimes bad things have to happen to accomplish a greater good."
So the end justifies the means, eh?
And we can commit the sins of Yahweh - destroy the whole earth bar a boatload, commit genocides, order mass rapes, massacre repeatedly in the name of religious intolerance, demand and accept human sacrifices, inseminate women without their consent, and oh so much more - as long as we have a greater good in mind?
Wow, Hitler would be so proud of you! You perfectly understand the good he was trying to bring about that made WW2 and the Holocaust worthwhile! You're exactly his kind of believer!
>Unfortunately the atheistic nations started using it for genocidal purposes.
chris: Hi Cid, but you lack vital information.
Fraid so, ever hear of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the Peoples Republic of China?
ec: >No, see my respnse to Blu's post.
chris: The reason it was the major religion was because 80 million men, women and children in Europe had been exterminated, along with their understandings of the workings of the universe. And THAT was only in Europe. The greatest evil in this world is to kill one's brother for the advancement of a religion on earth.
ec: >That is impossible, there were not even 80 million people in Europe in the middle ages.
chris: You are correct. Here's estimates at population. I remembered wrong.
Ok, but that was before he knew exactly what Hitler was doing.
ec: >Given that by the 1940's most jews were not very religious, I don't think the pope thought Judaism was a serious rival for Catholicism.
chris: I disagree. When you are speaking of a religious political hierarchy such as the Roman Catholic Church (and all its Christian denominations), any other religion will be constantly monitored as to its threat, and measures taken to ensure that it remains the most powerful.
There is no evidence that Christians believed in the 1940's that Judaism was a religious threat since Jews generally don't proselytize. They may have believed that they were a threat to the seculariziation of societies given their secular humanistic beliefs.
ec: Yes, it was the major religion, but it is more than that. How come it didn't start in the Far East or the Middle East, or in Africa or the Americas? It was because Christianity provided the rational basis for modern science.
f1: No. Europe had many influences and broad cultures, along with historical resources (like books and writing) and social infrastructure. Europe had the best circumstance for science and rational thought to develop. the only contribution that Christianity made was that it tried to supporess reason and thought for so long that many rebelled, like Galileo. Holland was a center for free thought away from Christianity all though the Enlightenment. There were other contributions made in the the East that were not made in the West, namely medicine and the physical arts, as in matial arts and yogic exercise. Gunpowder was invented in China, not Europe. So your ugly prejudice only demands more contempt for your type of religious belief.
Those physical things also helped, but also the scholastic theologians emphasized the importance of reason in studying the scriptures and in nature, God's other book. In case you forgot, Galileo was a devout Christian. Actually the reason the RCC rejected Galileo's findings was erroneously accepting Aristotles cosmology NOT the biblical cosmology, the bible does not teach that the earth is the center of the universe, Aristotle did. So actually Galileo was more biblical than the RCC theologians on this point. And Holland was a Christian nation and believed in freedom of conscience because that is what Christ and his disciples taught by example. They never tried to physically force someone to convert, they only used verbal persuasion and evidence.
ec: Of all the major religions only biblical religion teaches that there is a creation that exists objectively outside our minds and is orderly, ie Jeremiah 33:25, and rational.
f1: Wrong, the Hindu creation myth explains a creation independent of human minds. And it is more accurate (that is, consistent with reality) than the two Genesis creation myths.
No, the Hindus believed that ultimately all is One. Therefore, creation was part of your mind and vice versa, and the distinction between the particulars and the universals was an illusion so science was impossible.
ec: The greeks believed in gods that act capriciously and take the form of animals and plants, thereby making objective science impossible.
f1: How is that different than your type of believers saying it was god's will that a tornado killed a bus full of school kids? Do you have a better explanation for why a child dies of a genetic disease?
It was not God's will that a tornado killed a bus full of kids, but it was part of His plan but He did not directly cause it, He just allowed it for a greater good. A child dies of a genetic disease because the world we live in has become abnormal due to man's rebellion against God. Genes were affected and mutated by Man's rebellion. But ultimately it is fora greater good of eliminating evil in the universe. [...]
ec: The hindus believed that reality was an illusion and ultimately all is one, making science pointless.
f1: No, perceived reality is an illusion. You think your illusions are reality.
How do you know this? Most scientists generally think that what we perceive is reality, otherwise science is impossible. I think what I perceive is generally reality too.
f1: And Eastern philosophies look at the unity and larger functions of nature where Western views try to reduce nature to basic elements. This did not prevent Easterners from understanding how nature works.
There is a unity to nature up to a point but the diversity or particulars are real too, and not an illusion as the hindus believe. Evidence that prior to english imperialism, hindus engaged in experimental science?
Fraid so, ever hear of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the Peoples Republic of China?
What were the ideologies of the regimes of these countries? It couldn't have been atheism because atheism isn't an ideology, world view, ethical system, belief system or political system. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.
So, the Soviet Union under Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Why were they killed? For political reasons. Cambodia? The same reason. People were killed for political reasons. The Cultural Revolution in China was an emormous political action to further the political aims of the Chinese communist party and public "belief" in and fidelity to the communist party.
How do you explain Hitler's Holocaust? The 500,000 killed by Franco in Spain? The torture of 40,000 people and murder of 3,000 people in Chile under the regime of Augusto Pinochet?
Hitler, Franco and Pinochet were Christians. Explain that!
The current prime minister of Australia, the Right Honourable Julia Gillard, is an atheist. She is a benevolent and decent person and a very fine prime minister. According to your cockeyed reasoning, El Cid, she should be some sort of brutal dictator. Bob Hawke and Gough Whitlam were also atheist prime ministers of Australia and both their prime ministerships were notable for their commitment to social justice, progressive legislation and enlightened attitudes to women, gay & lesbian people and indigenous people.
Actually the reason the RCC rejected Galileo's findings was erroneously accepting Aristotles cosmology NOT the biblical cosmology, the bible does not teach that the earth is the center of the universe, Aristotle did. So actually Galileo was more biblical than the RCC theologians on this point.
The Bible claims that the earth is stationary and the sun moves around it. Moreover, it teaches that the earth is a disk covered by a dome. Aristotle got closer to the truth than that.
And Holland was a Christian nation and believed in freedom of conscience because that is what Christ and his disciples taught by example. They never tried to physically force someone to convert, they only used verbal persuasion and evidence.
Jesus and his disciples lacked the power to force conversions. As soon as Christians gained this power, they didn't hesitate to use it.