Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[2PhiloVoid]

It's just a matter of definition:

GENOCIDE:

noun

1. the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

All humans are certainly a group of humans. It fits the definition. It is not a matter of moral judgement or ethics or science. Just the modern usage of that modern term.

Does it matter to you that the term itself is of a fairly recent origin, one made in in response to the kinds of atrocities that have taken place since World War 2? It think it does matter since it's a highly charged term of modern politics and ethics. To apply it to an ancient piece of Hebrew/Israelits literature is a bit anachronistic and creates a very, very inconsistent comparative analogy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Does it matter to you that the term itself is of a fairly recent origin, one made in in response to the kinds of atrocities that have taken place since World War 2? It think it does matter since it's a highly charged term of modern politics and ethics. To apply it to an ancient piece of Hebrew/Israelits literature is a bit anachronistic and creates a very, very inconsistent comparative analogy.

Not especially. If the shoe fits...

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm with the Historic Church of the Existential Wanderers. [ That's a bit of humor...]

But more seriously speaking, my past affiliations have been with PCUSA, Southern Baptist and the Christian Church/Instrumental (i.e. conservative Disciples of Christ).

Despite all of that, I've always been an Existentialist Christian, with strong shades of Pascal and some Kierkegaard. As you know, this means that some of my fellow Christians, like Norman Geisler, have a rather strong distaste for my style of theology, but I just chalk all of that up to yet one more interesting piece of social philosophy to contemplate in my own Christian experience. It doesn't stop me from extending my hand in fellowship with more Fundamental thinking Christians.

Interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not especially. If the shoe fits...

It doesn't fit in the case of someone applying it willy-nilly (and that's what it is--willy nilly) to the biblical text of Genesis (or the rest of the Pentateuch.)

But it does fit a case, even if it's an attempted case, if and when applied to some current leader's military actions like those which we're all familiar with at the moment via the World News. And it definitely fits the case of what Jewish people had to endure during World War 2.

But to the God of the Bible? No. It doesn't apply nor is it appropriate semantically or philosophically to apply it in such a way to God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It doesn't fit in the case of someone applying it willy-nilly (and that's what it is--willy nilly) to the biblical text of Genesis (or the rest of the Pentateuch.)

But it does fit a case, even if it's an attempted case, if and when applied to some current leader's military actions like those which we're all familiar with at the moment via the World News. And it definitely fits the case of what Jewish people had to endure during World War 2.

But to the God of the Bible? No. It doesn't apply nor is it appropriate semantically or philosophically to apply it in such a way to God.

I'm inclined to agree, in that when Raphael Lemkin (supposedly) coined the word in 1944, it was meant to signify the killing of an entire race of people (the Greek genos is translated as "race" or "kind").

But that only refers to one race... God's clear intention during the Flood was to, with a few exceptions, exterminate all races and life from the planet, so the word "omnicide," meaning the destruction of all life (or at least all human life), would be more accurate. Now, that word didn't enter our lexicon until 1959, to describe the effects of nuclear weapons, but could just as easily describe the effects of an angry god.

Now, the existence of the ark and the fact that God did eventually allow the waters to recede stop me from using my favorite neologism -- mundicide, the destruction of an entire planet. That word was coined in the Star Wars novelizations to describe the Death Star, but I have no doubt that if Darth Vader were a Christian instead of a Jedi, he'd probably agree that "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the LORD."

...or would he be mistaken?

 

[Astrid]

I'm inclined to agree, in that when Raphael Lemkin (supposedly) coined the word in 1944, it was meant to signify the killing of an entire race of people (the Greek genos is translated as "race" or "kind").

But that only refers to one race... God's clear intention during the Flood was to, with a few exceptions, exterminate all races and life from the planet, so the word "omnicide," meaning the destruction of all life (or at least all human life), would be more accurate. Now, that word didn't enter our lexicon until 1959, to describe the effects of nuclear weapons, but could just as easily describe the effects of an angry god.

Now, the existence of the ark and the fact that God did eventually allow the waters to recede stop me from using my favorite neologism -- mundicide, the destruction of an entire planet. That word was coined in the Star Wars novelizations to describe the Death Star, but I have no doubt that if Darth Vader were a Christian instead of a Jedi, he'd probably agree that "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the LORD."

...or would he be mistaken?

Its really something, the way christians insist their
god really did those things

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does it matter to you that the term itself is of a fairly recent origin, one made in in response to the kinds of atrocities that have taken place since World War 2? It think it does matter since it's a highly charged term of modern politics and ethics. To apply it to an ancient piece of Hebrew/Israelits literature is a bit anachronistic and creates a very, very inconsistent comparative analogy.

Most of the words we use here did not exist when the bible was written since they are English words.

OK, genocide is "charged", but so what? Are there any better words for describing that one time Yahweh is claimed to have killed nearly all humans and land animals? Now I was only mentioning the genetic evidence demonstrating that the claimed mass killing of humanity down to just 8 people (5 unique genomes) didn't fit the modern evidence based on the current genetic diversity of humans. That is all. No ethical or moral evaluation, just trying to give name to that aspect of the Noah story and how it fails to fit with evidence. It's an evaluation that doesn't care about *how* everyone died and would be the same if the story claimed everyone (but the 8) died of spontaneous heart attacks.

[Though, I like VLK Valentines term, so from now on the mass death of the flood story shall be the "Noachian Omnicide". Hopefully that is less triggering. I'm well aware of the scenario it was coined to describe, but I'd never heard the word until today.]

 

[Bradskii]

Though, I like VLK Valentines term, so from now on the mass death of the flood story shall be the "Noachian Omnicide". Hopefully that is less triggering. I'm well aware of the scenario it was coined to describe, but I'd never heard the word until today.

Gets my vote. It certainly needs to be something-cide. 'The Flood' is just too insipid. That's just lots of rain and lots of water. I mean, we are talking about the intentional killing by drowning of men, women and children. Young kids, babes in arms, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm. If anyone is not sure about the sheer terror involved, then check out some fun videos of waterboarding.

 

[Astrid]

Gets my vote. It certainly needs to be something-cide. 'The Flood' is just too insipid. That's just lots of rain and lots of water. I mean, we are talking about the intentional killing by drowning of men, women and children. Young kids, babes in arms, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm. If anyone is not sure about the sheer terror involved, then check out some fun videos of waterboarding.

Weve detected an exultent "they deserved it" attitude
on the part of flood- believers.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Gets my vote. It certainly needs to be something-cide. 'The Flood' is just too insipid. That's just lots of rain and lots of water. I mean, we are talking about the intentional killing by drowning of men, women and children. Young kids, babes in arms, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm. If anyone is not sure about the sheer terror involved, then check out some fun videos of waterboarding.

And lest someone think that "omnicide" isn't applicable because God deliberately left survivors, and thus, didn't intend to kill everybody, I want to point out that nobody shies away from calling Thanos an "omnicidal villain"...

even though he only killed half of all life, and his motivations were altruistic, albeit misguided.

ETA: I'm not calling God a "villain"; that would be blasphemy -- but if the "omnicidal" shoe fits...

 

[AV1611VET]

ETA: I'm not calling God a "villain"; that would be blasphemy -- but if the "omnicidal" shoe fits...

Omnicide: the destruction of all life or all human life.

If you're referring to omnicide as a necessary evil, then the term is appropriate.

But if you're referring to omnicide as an unnecessary evil, then the term is inappropriate.

I have a feeling that you don't think God was justified in what He did; and I have a feeling you're wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Omnicide: the destruction of all life or all human life.

If you're referring to omnicide as a necessary evil, then the term is appropriate.

But if you're referring to omnicide as an unnecessary evil, then the term is inappropriate.

I have a feeling that you don't think God was justified in what He did; and I have a feeling you're wrong.

But I'm not discussing it as necessary, or even evil. In fact, this sub-sub-topic only arose because I mentioned that the genetic evidence shows that *IT DIDN'T HAPPEN*. Therefore, I have no reason to judge whether it is evil or not (and I didn't). As for the "justification", that is again irrelevant. There is no need to argue about the justification for an event that didn't happen.

The only scenario in which a god destroys nearly all human life *and* has the modern genetic diversity is one where the god also creates some new genetic diversity *after* the omnicide event. I won't step on the theological creativity you are known for to create a scenario for this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm inclined to agree, in that when Raphael Lemkin (supposedly) coined the word in 1944, it was meant to signify the killing of an entire race of people (the Greek genos is translated as "race" or "kind").

But that only refers to one race... God's clear intention during the Flood was to, with a few exceptions, exterminate all races and life from the planet, so the word "omnicide," meaning the destruction of all life (or at least all human life), would be more accurate. Now, that word didn't enter our lexicon until 1959, to describe the effects of nuclear weapons, but could just as easily describe the effects of an angry god.

Now, the existence of the ark and the fact that God did eventually allow the waters to recede stop me from using my favorite neologism -- mundicide, the destruction of an entire planet. That word was coined in the Star Wars novelizations to describe the Death Star, but I have no doubt that if Darth Vader were a Christian instead of a Jedi, he'd probably agree that "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the LORD."

...or would he be mistaken?

As well written as your post is, and as obviously thoughtful and logical as it appears to be--informative even in adding the term "mundicide" to the vocabulary of those of us who haven't had the opportunity to read more Star Wars novels than we have--I'm going to have to say that you are merely mixing metaphors in order to make your point. A point which, for the very reasons I stated in my previous post, fails.

To be more clear then, your attempt to escalate the term and to then impute it to the act of God which we see expressed in the Great Flood narrative doesn't solve anything other than to show that you're willing to double-down on the meta-level problem I've cited.

In sum, whether skeptics prefer to import and apply either "genocide, omnicide or mundicide" as a preferred term of choice from within their own particular ethical perspective and framework, to do so with any of these is still semantically inappropriate in this case.

I'd say that despite your nicely phrased response, TLK, you're both 1) Begging the Question on a meta-level of language and 2) Committing the fallacy of "the complex question" when posing your "Darth Vader Catch-22," however much I may have been entertained by it as the Star Wars fan I am.

Maybe, too, consider all of this before you put me on trial for "saving Galactus."

Reed Richards, over and out!

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'm not discussing it as necessary, or even evil. In fact, this sub-sub-topic only arose because I mentioned that the genetic evidence shows that *IT DIDN'T HAPPEN*. Therefore, I have no reason to judge whether it is evil or not (and I didn't). As for the "justification", that is again irrelevant. There is no need to argue about the justification for an event that didn't happen.

The only scenario in which a god destroys nearly all human life *and* has the modern genetic diversity is one where the god also creates some new genetic diversity *after* the omnicide event. I won't step on the theological creativity you are known for to create a scenario for this.

As I told Subduction Zone here:

After reading up on bottleneck events, I'm convinced that blessing in Genesis 9:1 goes much deeper than just giving them fertility.

I'm convinced God restructured their alleles and fitter genes to handle His command to replenish the earth, while at the same time, combating inbreed depression.

 

[AV1611VET]

As well written as your post is, and as obviously thoughtful and logical as it appears to be--informative even in adding the term "mundicide" to the vocabulary of those of us who haven't had the opportunity to read more Star Wars novels than we have--I'm going to have to say that you are merely mixing metaphors in order to make your point. A point which, for the very reasons I stated in my previous post, fails.

Did you ever talk to to sbvera here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you ever talk to to sbvera here?

I don't recollect at the moment, AV. Perhaps I have, but it's not a name that I readily recognize.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Omnicide: the destruction of all life or all human life.

If you're referring to omnicide as a necessary evil, then the term is appropriate.

But if you're referring to omnicide as an unnecessary evil, then the term is inappropriate.

Well, as neither I nor any other moral being would ever consider omnicide to be "necessary," then the term is indeed appropriate. Thanks for the QED.

I have a feeling that you don't think God was justified in what He did; and I have a feeling you're wrong.

I have a feeling you're about to give me a convoluted and nonsensical reason why you think He was justified in committing omnicide.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most of the words we use here did not exist when the bible was written since they are English words.

True, which is a part of my point. Words, and the languages that they're expressed within, can and often do assume a particular 'way' of seeing and understanding the world, even if not wholly, at least partially.

OK, genocide is "charged", but so what? Are there any better words for describing that one time Yahweh is claimed to have killed nearly all humans and land animals?

Being that we are dealing with a text that assumes transcendent entities, it's practical application is essentially beyond our scope of common human experience. I'm not sure we have words that apply to the Biblical God if He is a part of our shared Reality rather than a fictional character in a set of books.

Now I was only mentioning the genetic evidence demonstrating that the claimed mass killing of humanity down to just 8 people (5 unique genomes) didn't fit the modern evidence based on the current genetic diversity of humans. That is all. No ethical or moral evaluation, just trying to give name to that aspect of the Noah story and how it fails to fit with evidence. It's an evaluation that doesn't care about *how* everyone died and would be the same if the story claimed everyone (but the 8) died of spontaneous heart attacks.

[Though, I like VLK Valentines term, so from now on the mass death of the flood story shall be the "Noachian Omnicide". Hopefully that is less triggering. I'm well aware of the scenario it was coined to describe, but I'd never heard the word until today.]

ok.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, as neither I nor any other moral being would ever consider omnicide to be "necessary," then the term is indeed appropriate.

God gave His reason for doing so.

And although the reason is superficial, I'm sure there's much more to it than what God documented.

Much more.

So the bottom line: neither you, nor I, were there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, as neither I nor any other moral being would ever consider omnicide to be "necessary," then the term is indeed appropriate. Thanks for the QED.

This kind of statement is exactly at the nexus of the problem I've been attempting to point out here in my last few posts. What you're are ending up with here, whether intentionally or not, is a moral affirmation extending from your own assumed Ethical framework, one that presupposes the correctness of your own moral view. The thing is, no one has to see your affirmation as an Absolute singular value expressing some essential, invariable Moral Truth that any or all of us necessarily should concede to, especially if the given exhibit or our moral interest is assumed to be a fictional, transcendent literary character.

Moreover, it's politically problematic in that your statement is asserted with loaded language, insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with you in any capacity is "immoral" prima facie.

I have a feeling you're about to give me a convoluted and nonsensical reason why you think He was justified in committing omnicide.

This is more of the obfuscated kind of rhetoric I'm referring to above, TLK, and while I don't know how AV will attempt to answer, I can do so without asserting any metaphysical necessities or having any literal reliance upon the Bible whatsoever other than to apply Hermeneutics to what may be an entirely fictional account.