David M. Payne

Hi guys, it's been a while since my last post but I thought I'd share this letter to the editor that the Reno Gazette-Journal ran today from me. Given how conservative this paper is I'm surprised they ran it at all.
In all the years I've dealt with this problem of God using his own free will in doing an act of evil, I've never seen a rational, logical or MORAL argument that held any intellectual weight to counter the point I make in this post about God and his act in the great flood. Of course we know that there was no great flood and if you look up "Black Sea" on yahoo you can read the report from the National Geographic on the remains of a building deep in the sea there, which would explain the great flood stories, but I digress, so once again enjoy this large conundrum that the true believers can't argue their way out of using a logical, rational or MORAL argument.

Is God the root of religious conflict and holy war?

I'm dismayed at all the violence done in the name of God and religion. 9/11 is but one example of the many conflicts and holy wars throughout history propagated in the name of God and/or religion by his true believers. I wonder if the problems of violence and evil done by the religious keep reoccurring not because of the often-used free will defense, but because their God set the example for unimaginable violence himself.

In Genesis we have the Abrahamic God drowning the entire human race save Noah and his family for the sins of violence and corruption. This would include innocent animals and babies and children too young to say sin, let alone commit it. Why would an omnipotent God make this horrible choice, when he had every other choice available to him?

A great leader should set the example, and in drowning almost the entire human race this vengeful God set the worst example one could set, genocide. He even violated his own rules in the process, according to Deuteronomy 24-16 and Ezekiel 18-20. Both passages say it is forbidden to punish one for the sins of another, but isn't that just what this Abrahamic God did?

This below is not part of my letter, it's just for your editors reference. Here are the full passages in case there is any question about how accurate I'm being in this last paragraph.

Deuteronomy 24-16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

And:

Ezekiel 18-20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

David

WILLOWTREE

IF God IS, then whatever He does IS righteous.

Your views now become entirely subjective and predictable.


We know there was one. You have made an error caused by need.

We have reports of the Deluge worldwide. Common denominators prove there was a Flood and a handful escaped by boat. Because antiquity was not capable of modern communication it is impossible for these accounts to have been made up or be the product of conspiracy. This is prima facie evidence ignored by anti-Biblical worldviews and their needs. The reason this irrefutable body of evidence is asserted contrary is because the existence of God is at stake. Darwinists must hold to ambiguous physical evidence retrieved from the ground for their extraordinary claim of human evolution - evidence that needs interpretation, unlike the Flood accounts. Darwinists can manipulate fossils but words in ancient texts cannot be treated as such. Therefore they brand as myth = extreme special pleading.

Quintessential lawyer rhetoric. Your worldview is showing.

What is your source for how God must act ?


Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist

JEST2ASK

Sorry I disagree that is simply a personal asseration based on nothing more than gross speculation. Because it was written by someone who yo can not question or verify what they meant by that or what was their basis for forming that conclusion. You seem to think because many others have been indoctrinated to accept that statement it is somehow based on reality.



Sorry but that is just too funny ... Because one ancient group adopted the myths of an earlier civilization... that is conclusive evidence

There are many flood stories from many different cultures I wonder if it could be that early civilizations arose in areas prone to periodic flooding. There are also many ancient cultures without flood stories.

I would rather have actual traceable evidence left in the geological record rather than being left with the words of a group of individuals who believed in Magic of all sorts.



As we know yours already, which details what your god thought and felt ... and you never question that source ...

Why give Paul any crediablity, his own words echo self-delusion.

However nice to met you ... as I said nothing personal.

JEST2ASK

If all Relgions and their associated dieties were formed in the minds of Humans why would you not expect to see a reflection of both good and bad human personality triats. The biblical god stating I am jealous seems grounded in the fear (Xenophobia) of earliest believers. I have yet to see any Relgion that does not (IMO) have the marks of human invention.

I know God works in mysterious ways ... etc etc etc

Mountain Man

No. The archaic belief that gods exist is the cause. Since the gods do not exist the ONLY "cause" left is human.

Mountain Man

The error is your's. There was no flood as described in the ancient SUMERIAN fable plagiarized by the writers of the OT.There are no such reports. Other cultures do talk about floods, but the timing is all wrong and most are actually described as local.

WILLOWTREE

Assumption of myth = extreme special pleading. IOW, we have a Darwinist asserting ALL of these accounts were invented and not based upon reality = Darwinian need because the Flood refutes everything they've spoken up for.

Like I said in the previous post: there were no communication abilities world wide. Any given civilization had no idea what any other was writing. The Flood accounts are worldwide. This body of evidence proves Darwinists are not loyal to evidence. They will assert contrary to all logic: the world somehow perpetuated a lie = needs of anti-Biblical worldviews.

Yet this same Darwinist actually believes obscure fossil scraps prove human evolution. Flood evidence via texts is massive yet the sum total of fossil scraps asserted to be transitional could fit in a small box.

These Flood accounts have too many common denominators and nothing about "local flooding".

Atheist philosophy dismissing evidence and all of history because it falsifies his worldview.

Hundreds of WORLDWIDE accounts impossible to mean anything other than the common denominators completely hand-waved. The needs of the irrational Darwinian worldview ignoring first hand evidence of the Flood.

Ray

WILLOWTREE

Predictable and unsupported assertion that defies the evidence.

Assumption of myth/fable = special pleading based on need. IOW, all of antiquity lied according to this Darwinist. We know who does the lying today. Your opinion makes no sense outside of Darwinian needs.

Ray

David B

Ray, how did Dodos get to Mauritious after your alleged flood, and live nowhere else?

David B

Brel

We have no proof that God kills people. We have abundant proof, however, that people kill people. They just think up many excuses, their religion one of them, in order to make it easier for them to do it.