Active Now

Element 99
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Every human who died in the great flood wasn't wicked. Such folks were collateral damage. Have we reached the tipping point yet?
RosieG

Every human who died in the great flood wasn't wicked. Such folks were collateral damage. Have we reached the tipping point yet?

Where the wicked outnumber the good and so the good will be destroyed as collateral damage to get rid of the wicked? The fire next time or another flood? Earthquakes or tornado or avalanches or mudslides? How will we all die this time? Maybe not by a GOD's hand at all. Maybe an "other" hand whose disgust with homo saps has reached its limit? Anything is possible when you don't know anything and homo saps know so very little.

Posted - August 5, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6023
    *GASP*

    Are you saying that the all-powerful, all-knowing God-of-Abraham ... while He gathered all the animals to be saved ... didn't gather all the innocent people to be saved?  That God was directly responsible for the painful deaths of innocent people?

    I mean, God even saved the UNCLEAN animals ... but He couldn't be bothered to save innocent humans?

    Well.  Who would still worship such a murderous deity?!?
      August 5, 2019 10:47 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Read the question again Walt. Every word. Notice all the question marks therein? Notice my words at the very end admitting we know so very little? Did you not pay any attention to that? Wanna try again or are you done? Thank you.
      August 6, 2019 4:14 AM MDT
    0

  • 3719
    That notion of a nasty, dictatorial, embittered God with terrifying powers over the human life he was credited with creating but has no compunction about destroying, was invented for social control by the priestly leaders of a small, Late Bronze Age, tribal society living in a fairly compact patch of the Middle East.

    Their Noah story may or may not have been inspired by an unusually severe local flood, but is obviously only a fable.

    '

    The only natural disaster capable of killing very many thousands of people irrespective of place or local conditions, is an epidemic of a disease that it easily transmitted, rapid in action and very hard to treat. Only, natural disasters do not judge their victims. They kill indiscriminately.

    This happened with the so-called "Spanish Flu" that swept across Western Europe and parts of Asia in World War One. It gained the name solely because the Press in neutral Spain described the epidemic in detail, whereas their neighbours kept it low-key for war-time morale reasons.
     
    Geographical events - earthquakes and tsunami, volcanic eruptions, floods, land-slips, forest-fires, violent weather - can kill large numbers of people but usually in relatively small regions.   Severe droughts can be much more widespread and can drive large numbers of people into migrating elsewhere. 

    '

    The feared, predicted effects of climate change over this century do not include direct deaths; but do include very large migrations retreating from encroaching seas, over-heating of much of the presently-occupied tropics, and loss of water-supplies by loss of high mountain ice and snow. Heat can kill, itself or by drought and famine; but a widening of tropical regions also widens the ranges of diseases like malaria.

    The covering of land by the sea, due to rising sea-level or sinking continental-crust, is called a "marine transgression". An odd phrase as the sea is innocent: it cannot choose to attack the land! The opposite is a "marine regression". 

    (I know Donald Trump would call me a liar, but he's no more a meteorologist than I am a golf-course speculator temporarily running a country.)

    '

    In the end, if anyone is going to kill off vast swathes of humanity, it will be humanity itself. Not God, certainly not deadly but purely-regional events like earthquakes and violent storms. And questions of guilt or innocence will probably be effectively as irrelevant as they are to a virus.
      August 6, 2019 2:57 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Thank you for a very thoughtful reply Durdle. Where did disease originate? There is a theory that earth is a test tube for research. Horrific things are visited upon us by "others" to see the effect. Just as we do the same thing in our labs. I'm not saying it's possible. But I'm not so sure that it's impossible. Since we know nothing about anything compared to what ther e is to know...a tiny teardrop of knowledge when there are oceans...we make assumptions, conject, opine, extrapolate all the time. What's "true" today is not true tomorrow which means it really wasn't true at all unless of course TRUE CHANGES. Does it? I shall ask.
      August 6, 2019 4:18 AM MDT
    0

  • 3719
    That "test tube" theory sounds like a curious mixture of rather mystical religion and space fantasy. There's no reason to think diseases did not originate entirely on Earth along with life generally, perhaps once that had advanced a bit; and possibly as a sort of rather brutal natural culling.

    I agree though that more we find, the more questions we seem to find. Science does advance by constant revision though, as new methods or discoveries show this or that theory no longer fits the observations. 

    A classic historical example is the acceptance of the Solar System working as we know. Prior to that, trying to describe the observed orbits of the planets known then so they fitted the dogmatic geocentric model, became ever harder and more absurd. Once 17C astronomers could safely say we move round the Sun, not vice-versa, everyone soon realised it's all much more elegant and simple than they'd thought!

    Much more recent (1960s I think), is the principle of Plate Tectonics. When new oceanographic and geological techniques revealed evidence previously hidden in the deep oceans, all sorts of things previously difficult to explain in a cohesively and coherently, rapidly fell into place.  

    THE big question still to be resolved on Earth is how life originated. They have a very good idea of what it was first (simple single-celled organisms capable of living in conditions that would kill later life). The problem is how constituents of the early oceans' chemical soup combined and sparked into proto-life, essentially a self-reproducing entity, probably simple bacteria, fuelling themselves from the surroundings and in the process, slowly converting the soup and atmosphere above, into versions more advanced organisms need. I think one hint is finding specialist bacteria thriving in the most unlikely places.
      August 7, 2019 3:40 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    Are you kidding? You mean you actually didn't outgrow biblical fables by the time you were 30? Incredible.
      August 6, 2019 3:05 AM MDT
    2