Bring on World War 3. . .

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Destroy the World?

FIRE!
1
9%
There is still much that is beautiful and good. Hold . . .
10
91%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Bring on World War 3. . .

Post #1

Post by achilles12604 »

achilles12604 wrote: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?
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #51

Post by achilles12604 »

OnceConvinced wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:

Whether they effect the entire world or not, they can still hardly be considered merciful acts. God was still willing to press the fire button.


So . . . what are you saying here? That no one should ever be punished for anything? Or even more to the point, there should be no accountability for anyone and all actions, no matter how harmful to the self, or others should be tolerated?


No, I'm not saying that at all. But what about all the innocent children that suffered as a result of God's wrath? God also had a habit of punishing people for things other people did in the OT. ie. family members and ancestors.

I personally find it hard to believe that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah was evil and find it hard to believe that Noah and his family were the only Godly people in the world at their time either.


If you find it hard to believe that everyone was evil (source the OT) then there is no problem because you should find it equally hard to accept that Sodom happened (source OT).

If you accept that Sodom happened (source OT) and then complain that is was cruel, you must also accept the biblical explanation that everyone was in fact evil.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

Beto

Post #52

Post by Beto »

achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:

Whether they effect the entire world or not, they can still hardly be considered merciful acts. God was still willing to press the fire button.


So . . . what are you saying here? That no one should ever be punished for anything? Or even more to the point, there should be no accountability for anyone and all actions, no matter how harmful to the self, or others should be tolerated?


No, I'm not saying that at all. But what about all the innocent children that suffered as a result of God's wrath? God also had a habit of punishing people for things other people did in the OT. ie. family members and ancestors.

I personally find it hard to believe that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah was evil and find it hard to believe that Noah and his family were the only Godly people in the world at their time either.


If you find it hard to believe that everyone was evil (source the OT) then there is no problem because you should find it equally hard to accept that Sodom happened (source OT).

If you accept that Sodom happened (source OT) and then complain that is was cruel, you must also accept the biblical explanation that everyone was in fact evil.
Wait a second... to accept the possibility that everyone in Sodom was evil one has to accept the whole world was evil, apart from a handful of people? How come?

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #53

Post by achilles12604 »

Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:

Whether they effect the entire world or not, they can still hardly be considered merciful acts. God was still willing to press the fire button.


So . . . what are you saying here? That no one should ever be punished for anything? Or even more to the point, there should be no accountability for anyone and all actions, no matter how harmful to the self, or others should be tolerated?


No, I'm not saying that at all. But what about all the innocent children that suffered as a result of God's wrath? God also had a habit of punishing people for things other people did in the OT. ie. family members and ancestors.

I personally find it hard to believe that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah was evil and find it hard to believe that Noah and his family were the only Godly people in the world at their time either.


If you find it hard to believe that everyone was evil (source the OT) then there is no problem because you should find it equally hard to accept that Sodom happened (source OT).

If you accept that Sodom happened (source OT) and then complain that is was cruel, you must also accept the biblical explanation that everyone was in fact evil.
Wait a second... to accept the possibility that everyone in Sodom was evil one has to accept the whole world was evil, apart from a handful of people? How come?
No no.

He used two examples. Sodom and Noah. I focused on Sodom where you need to accept a city of people were all corrupt. The whole world being corrupt would be reference Noah.

But in either case my point is the same.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

Beto

Post #54

Post by Beto »

achilles12604 wrote:
Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:

Whether they effect the entire world or not, they can still hardly be considered merciful acts. God was still willing to press the fire button.


So . . . what are you saying here? That no one should ever be punished for anything? Or even more to the point, there should be no accountability for anyone and all actions, no matter how harmful to the self, or others should be tolerated?


No, I'm not saying that at all. But what about all the innocent children that suffered as a result of God's wrath? God also had a habit of punishing people for things other people did in the OT. ie. family members and ancestors.

I personally find it hard to believe that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah was evil and find it hard to believe that Noah and his family were the only Godly people in the world at their time either.


If you find it hard to believe that everyone was evil (source the OAT) then there is no problem because you should find it equally hard to accept that Sodom happened (source OT).

If you accept that Sodom happened (source OT) and then complain that is was cruel, you must also accept the biblical explanation that everyone was in fact evil.
Wait a second... to accept the possibility that everyone in Sodom was evil one has to accept the whole world was evil, apart from a handful of people? How come?
No no.

He used two examples. Sodom and Noah. I focused on Sodom where you need to accept a city of people were all corrupt. The whole world being corrupt would be reference Noah.

But in either case my point is the same.
You said "you should find it equally hard to accept that Sodom happened", but I'm pretty sure you recognize the probability of a city becoming "corrupt" or "evil" (in as far as it relates to my own system of ethics) is significantly smaller than the whole world being "evil". So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there?), that in no way means we recognize "an evil world" as anything but an infinitely small probability, and therefore, not to be taken under serious consideration.

zepper899
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:31 am

Post #55

Post by zepper899 »

i think to clear up your arguments, you both need to reference the fact that sodom was 'mostly or all evil.' they must have had fewer than 10 good people, as stated previously, for the wrath of YHWH to come down. if you keep that constant, then sodom should be destroyed, ignoring the pleas of 9 or fewer people. whether that applies to the world (10 good people in the world would prevent destruction), or is a ratio (10 people per city the size of sodom) is unclear to me. if any one knows a verse to explain, i would be grateful.

also, onceconvinced, you said that you question the legitmacy of sodom. is this doubting the general validity of the old testament or just interpreting this story to be allegorical?

also, achilles, you say there were no children? just because there were no children specifically referenced does not mean that no children existed. the OT is a historical text, just a book. it may be a divine book to some, but it still doesn't need to constantly catalogue every existence in creation.

finally, if a city can become (mostly) evil, why can't a world?
is the world truly (mostly) evil?
there are many evil things, but i don't think that the ratio has not reached 10 people:sodom yet.
my vote is therefore cast. the worlds still good enough

Beto

Post #56

Post by Beto »

I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #57

Post by achilles12604 »

Beto wrote:I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?


I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

zepper899
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:31 am

Post #58

Post by zepper899 »

achilles12604 wrote:
Beto wrote:I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?


I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.
firstly
So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)
secondly, great thread on sodom. i find we will agree. im jsut too lazy to do the reaseach on teh biblical events, so ill supply a second argument on other cultures.
as i usually say, interpretation is everything. i believe in teh bible. i believe in teh bible as much as i believe in any other ancient text. i believe that gilgamesh was teh king of uruk. an exerpt from an essay: "Marduk, after conquering Tiamat and Qingu, orders the creation of a city for his followers. He tells the Anunnaki to “create Babylon, whose construction [they request]” (Dalley 262). This gives a plausible explanation for the existence of their city... The Enuma Elish also functioned to show a shift in authority. When a group was dominant, the most powerful god would be the central city’s patron god. The Akkadians located Babylon as their axis city, so when they were in power, they expressed the Babylonian god, Marduk, as dominant. Dalley describes Marduk founding cultic centers for Ellil, "the king of all populated lands" (321), signifying the dominance of the Babylonians (255). myth can be used to explain many aspects of society. they can be natural events, beyond the scope of the current population. in a lecture, one possible explanation of the events in egypt, the 10 plagues, all explained as natural phenonmenon. every single one. i'm not trying to swing this argument either way, just suppling food for thought.
by the way: mesopotamian society was the near eastern society before teh abraham. Marduk, tiamat, qingu, ellil are all gods in this culture. dalley translated mesopotamian cuniform tablets into english.the akkadians and babylonians are teh citizens of two different 'tribes.'
if one on this forum doesn't know o fthe mesopotamians i highly suggest reading their literature. there are so many myths in this culture that have so many parallels it is impossible to suggest that many stories of the bible are not based on these people's myth
Last edited by zepper899 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #59

Post by achilles12604 »

zepper899 wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
Beto wrote:I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?


I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.
firstly
So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)
Lets deal with this first and then we can get to part two.


Please provide which post I wrote this. The posts are numbered. Tell everyone which post I wrote what you are accusing me of because frankly I have no idea.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

zepper899
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:31 am

Post #60

Post by zepper899 »

achilles12604 wrote:
zepper899 wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
Beto wrote:I don't think Achilles said there were no children or otherwise, but this seemed like a very important issue to me. I find a city devoid of children to be a statistical improbability. How does the scripture deal with that?


I deal with this quite simply.

Scripture is written by men with an agenda. Now there is good physical evidence for an occurence around Sodom which would have been close to what was described in the bible. However, this does not necessarily mean that it in fact was God's doing. These events were ascribed to God by men with said agenda.

If you read THIS thread you will see my conclusions about S and G.
firstly
So even if we can admit that eventually there might have been a city completely evil (btw there were no children there)
Lets deal with this first and then we can get to part two.


Please provide which post I wrote this. The posts are numbered. Tell everyone which post I wrote what you are accusing me of because frankly I have no idea.
oh poop, my bad. in post 54 beto questioned you saying that. but upon further investigation, i realize that you didn't say that. i was writing hastily, i fully apologize and take the blame for silly arguments

Post Reply