How Many to Save the World?

[SRP76]

I was thinking the other day about how most people suck, and I remembered the story of Sodom.

Most of you should know it, but for those that don't quite remember, the rundown: God decides the people of Sodom are pretty much complete pieces of crap, and decides to waste the city. But, if there are 100 good people in the town, He'll spare it. There aren't, so He lowers the bar, and again and again. Long story short, if there's just one decent human being in the whole miserable town, He won't destroy it. There isn't, and the city gets destroyed.

Now, here's the situation: it's modern day, and God gives you the same deal, only on a global scale. What percentage of people do you think God needs to drop the bar to, in order to spare our race?

Are 50% of people good? Are 90%? Or maybe only 25% of the people in the world are worth saving...?

What do you think?

[MoonSylver]

Define "good" :D

Seriously, depends on what day you ask me. Some days I'd say 50/50, most days 75/25 bad/good, some days even less...:rant:

[blind2d]

20%, final offer.

[MaximusIncredulous]

Good does need to be more defined in this context. Sodom was a very f.ucked up city and "good" as applied to Sodom is probably very different than good applied on a global scale in my mind. But to answer your question in terms of global good, i.e., uncorrupt, compassionate, sharing, and truthful then I would say 25%.

[AcesandEights]

My first thoughtful reply to this thread was going to be "R U sirius?", but I'll just say that though it's easier for people to remain civil and harmonious when the population is below the support threshold of local living space and resources, the capacity for good and evil will always be with us.

The idea that we, god or an outside event can scrub the slate clean of 'all those evil' or 'dumb' or whatever people is a narcissistic, overly simplified daydream and is the sort of thinking that is, ironically enough, the intellectual and spiritual grandfather of great and evil deeds.

[Skippy911sc]

The first problem is what does God consider good. If you live by the bible and no one really does, then there are no good people left in the world. People lie, cheat, steal, kill. They have premarital sex, they eat shell fish, they consume unclean animals. Then you have to consider if this would be a representation of the old testament or new, koran, torra... I think we can all feel in some way we are good people. I try my best to do good and to treat others in the way I wish to be treated. (Golden Rule). What more can be said.

[bassman]

I think for the most part the human race is good and tries to be good. Some people screw it up for the rest of us. A few bad eggs in a dozen.

To quote Jor El...

"They can be a great people... they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way"

[AcesandEights]

Well said, Bassman. Well said.

Reading your reply after mine, mine really reads as though I'm on the rag today :(

*Orders a cranberry juice.*

[MikePizzoff]

20%, final offer.

You drive a hard bargain, God.

[MoonSylver]

The first problem is what does God consider good. If you live by the bible and no one really does, then there are no good people left in the world. People lie, cheat, steal, kill. They have premarital sex, they eat shell fish, they consume unclean animals. Then you have to consider if this would be a representation of the old testament or new, koran, torra... I think we can all feel in some way we are good people. I try my best to do good and to treat others in the way I wish to be treated. (Golden Rule). What more can be said.

This is VERY good point. VERY few people are "good" in the biblical sense.

But there are probably a fair number of people who are decent, hardworking, relatively honest, don't hurt anyone else. So is that considered "good"?

Let's say you fall into that category (as I'd say I do), but you don't really perform charitable services or contribute to charity, don't perform selfless acts, etc. People who basically take care of their own, mind their own business, do their best to survive, & strive do no harm onto others, either by direct OR indirect actions or words. Good or no ?

If we're going strictly biblical, then I'd say 99% of us are screwed, for one reason or another...

[SRP76]

This isn't that complicated. You should be able recognize bad when you see it.

For instance, if a man would gleefully set a carload of children on fire to collect the auto insurance payout, that would go under the "bad" heading. You know right from wrong; just apply it to the people you see. Weed out the scumbags, and count who is left.

[Yojimbo]

This is VERY good point. VERY few people are "good" in the biblical sense.

But there are probably a fair number of people who are decent, hardworking, relatively honest, don't hurt anyone else. So is that considered "good"?

Let's say you fall into that category (as I'd say I do), but you don't really perform charitable services or contribute to charity, don't perform selfless acts, etc. People who basically take care of their own, mind their own business, do their best to survive, & strive do no harm onto others, either by direct OR indirect actions or words. Good or no ?

If we're going strictly biblical, then I'd say 99% of us are screwed, for one reason or another...
I agree. Old Testament wise we are all pretty much screwed.

For example, I am a Buddhist and therefore would probably be screwed under the old testament guidelines. I have heard from some born again Christians (new testament) some conflicting things-- one faction says that if I am a decent person which good moral values and a love and respect for my fellow mankind that I would then be considered a good person, however I have been also told by other factions that unless I am a born again like them that whether I am decent, etc. would not mean anything at all.

As a child, my folks sent me to a private school which was Christian based because they had a superior educational program than the public schools in my area. In Kindergarten, I remember being told that if I was a Christian and my family were buddhists that on the day of reckoning that the "hand of god" would scoop me up and carry me to heaven while the earth fell apart in the fires of hell, and my grandparents would be left behind, waving goodbye to me sadly as they were consumed by the god's wrath against the sinners. Of course, being a kid, this made me immediately break down in tears.

Before I get flamed for what I said, I want everyone to know that I realize that not all Christians feel this way, or subscribe to this sort of thought, so please understand that I do not mean my post as an attack on Christianity. I only mean to illustrate that the answer to the OG poster's query would depend on your interpretation of the word of the (Christian) Lord.


The first problem is what does God consider good. If you live by the bible and no one really does, then there are no good people left in the world. People lie, cheat, steal, kill. They have premarital sex, they eat shell fish, they consume unclean animals. Then you have to consider if this would be a representation of the old testament or new, koran, torra... I think we can all feel in some way we are good people. I try my best to do good and to treat others in the way I wish to be treated. (Golden Rule). What more can be said.

I agree with Skip's comment about the Golden Rule. Practically every major religion subscribes to this philosophy, so it can be considered a universal rule.

[MoonSylver]

This isn't that complicated. You should be able recognize bad when you see it.

Sure it is. Who decides what's "bad"?

Now, before I go any further, let me say I think there are certain things that, reguardless of religion or creed are just plain wrong. Murder. Rape. Theft. etc.

BUT...as said earlier, depending on your source/religion you can go to hell for: homosexuality, premarital sex, eating pork, etc.

[AcesandEights]

This isn't that complicated.

It's never too difficult for those orchestrating the pogroms :p

[Dommm]

Let's say you fall into that category (as I'd say I do), but you don't really perform charitable services or contribute to charity, don't perform selfless acts, etc. People who basically take care of their own, mind their own business, do their best to survive, & strive do no harm onto others, either by direct OR indirect actions or words. Good or no ?

If we're going strictly biblical, then I'd say 99% of us are screwed, for one reason or another...

Have to question thought, not doing any kind of selfless acts or not committing to any kind of charitable action, doesn't that equate to indirect bad doings... if you seesome one in trouble help kind of thought.

Not flaming just probing the question further

[Wyldwraith]

If there's 1 person in a million worthy of life then the race should be spared.

So long as there are even a few putting their convictions to work and living as well as they know how, in accordance with the moral code they were raised with then there's hope that the race can still elevate itself at some distant future point.

I personally believe that God only exercises the smiting option when he looks at a population and decides it's hopelessly blighted, and will only spread corruption from this point on. To me, God is a cosmic environmentalist of consciousness and evolution.

From an overview perspective it would have to be difficult to condemn an entire population if you could see the future and all possible potential in each individual then how do you put them down without being positive that nothing more can ever come from them of any worth?

[MoonSylver]

Have to question thought, not doing any kind of selfless acts or not committing to any kind of charitable action, doesn't that equate to indirect bad doings... if you seesome one in trouble help kind of thought.

Not flaming just probing the question further


There's a difference (IMO) between not performing selfless/charitable acts & standing by & doing nothing to help someone in trouble.

By selfless/charitable acts I'm thinking giving $ to a cause, working in a soup kitchen, etc. The doing of these acts is inherently good, but is the NOT doing of them inherently bad? I don't think so, if you don't have the time, $, etc to spare. Now if you're rich & don't have the constraints on your time...sure, no excuses.

Standing by & allowing another to come to harm or trouble when you COULD have done something directly...yeah, that's wrong.

The creed I (try) to live by is as others have said "the golden rule". Do unto others (etc.) or as another said "An it harm none, do what thou wilt & that shall be the whole of the law."

Harm none (including yourself!) by word, deed, thought, action, or INaction.

Key word there for me is TRY, on the thought part especially....:)

[Yojimbo]

There's a difference (IMO) between not performing selfless/charitable acts & standing by & doing nothing to help someone in trouble.

By selfless/charitable acts I'm thinking giving $ to a cause, working in a soup kitchen, etc. The doing of these acts is inherently good, but is the NOT doing of them inherently bad? I don't think so, if you don't have the time, $, etc to spare. Now if you're rich & don't have the constraints on your time...sure, no excuses.

Standing by & allowing another to come to harm or trouble when you COULD have done something directly...yeah, that's wrong.

The creed I (try) to live by is as others have said "the golden rule". Do unto others (etc.) or as another said "An it harm none, do what thou wilt & that shall be the whole of the law."

Harm none (including yourself!) by word, deed, thought, action, or INaction.

Key word there for me is TRY, on the thought part especially....:)
Right on, Moon - I am in total agreement with you, especially your thoughts on allowing harm come to someone else through inaction.

Charitable work is good, but a person who is unable to participate in a chartiable quest -- such as your average worker who has no money or spare time who expends all of his or her energy attempting to scrape by from paycheck to paycheck -- is not evil merely because their station does not alow them to participate in charitable causes. But on the flipside, participation in charitable causes does not necessarily equate to goodness either. Plenty of evil rich folk donate money to charity as a means to reduce their tax burden, and have no sincere interest in their fellow man whatsoever.

[FoodFight]

God, being omniscient, would have already known that the town and inhabitants were beyond redemption. It is a foregone conclusion that Sodom would be destroyed. This biblical story, like many, is meant to challenge the reader to question their own lives and morals and to see where they fall within Christian beliefs.

[strayrider]

I was thinking the other day about how most people suck, and I remembered the story of Sodom.

Most of you should know it, but for those that don't quite remember, the rundown: God decides the people of Sodom are pretty much complete pieces of crap, and decides to waste the city. But, if there are 100 good people in the town, He'll spare it. There aren't, so He lowers the bar, and again and again. Long story short, if there's just one decent human being in the whole miserable town, He won't destroy it. There isn't, and the city gets destroyed.

Now, here's the situation: it's modern day, and God gives you the same deal, only on a global scale. What percentage of people do you think God needs to drop the bar to, in order to spare our race?

Are 50% of people good? Are 90%? Or maybe only 25% of the people in the world are worth saving...?

What do you think?

I'd estimate that 90% of people can be considered "good". Sure, we all have bad habits, but that does not make us "bad" per se. Heck, I'd even go so far as including Liberals (including Gays and Lesbians) in the "good" category, despite their viewpoints ... LOL.

As for your Sodom and Gomorrah comparison, that is a moot point, but for the sake of argument ... Christ would have came to earth to save only one person ... probably me (I'm that important to Him and, granted, so is everyone else).

:D

-stray-

ps --

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m22/the_skein/buddy-jesus.jpg
Looking good, Kid.

[sandrock74]

I was born and raised catholic, but I would have to question God on why he felt the need to destroy the human race. Life is precious and therefore worth saving. Don't condem the human race as a whole for the actions of a percentage.

I might find myself smited or something, but I would stand up for humanity.

[Dommm]

Key word there for me is TRY, on the thought part especially....:)

:D

to quote Yoda

do or do not, there is no try

:p

[MoonSylver]

:D

to quote Yoda

do or do not, there is no try

:p

Yeah, I've tried that one on myself. Never seems to work though...:D

[Dommm]

Yeah, I've tried that one on myself. Never seems to work though...:D

you Have to focus and believe young padawan learner...

[blind2d]

Mumbo Jumbo disguised as deep philosophical thinking... nowhere near as good as Confucius.
Yoda's just a 1200-year-old hack!

[MoonSylver]

Mumbo Jumbo disguised as deep philosophical thinking... nowhere near as good as Confucius.
Yoda's just a 1200-year-old hack!

Mark Hamel said of The Force & the borrowing of concepts "it's like 'Religions Greatest Hits!' " ;)

[blind2d]

Yeah? Hamill said that? I guess it's true, without the whole "God is Love" thing... There is only ONE what can save the world.

[EvilNed]

The question is irrelevant, seeing as there is no god.

[MoonSylver]

The question is irrelevant, seeing as there is no god.

Well thanks for clearing that up for us.:rolleyes: :lol:

[EvilNed]

Well, just in case there was any doubt.

[Wyldwraith]

Atheists amuse me,
Most (don't want to generalize) that I've spoken with profess to hold rationality and science as the highest guiding principles in the Universe. What amuses me about a dogged disbelief in God is that by definition no true scientist would be willing to definitively state there is no God. Where's the evidence to prove or disprove a posited theory?

Now, if someone wants to state their categorical *belief* in the non-existence of any sort of God then hey, feel free.

If you want to state it as a fact though it would be nice if the facts that prove one's position were also supplied.

[EvilNed]

If you want to state it as a fact though it would be nice if the facts that prove one's position were also supplied.

I cannot prove that there is no higher-up entity. But I can prove that there is no benevolent, all-powerful creature as in the Bible, or Torah, or Quran or whatever. Because the state of the world simply proves that there can not be any such being.

"We have to doubt the existance of a God that creates us in his image, and then blames us for his mistakes."

I know there is not such a god. But I don't know that there aren't any supernatural beings out there. I just laugh at the ridiculous notion.

[triste realtà]

Jesus and his dad are a myth, y'all
Here's the proof:

AMlWPNDiVrE

Merry Christmas!

[Skippy911sc]

Hahaha

I loved that video... Funny Stuff...check out the banking video from the same guys...Those are fantastic!!

[EvilNed]

Just because something is wrapped around the veil of the "documentary" doesn't mean it's true. But this is the only part of Zeitgeist that actually seems to ring true. There are no sources, except for the New Testament (which was written centuries after it's alleged it took place) that suggest there was ever a man named Jesus Christ.

And this is completely on-topic, considering... erh... Well, everyone knows that the guys who made Zeitgeist, happen to be born on the same day as the Council of Nicea was held, and that ties it together with this thread that was not created, but concieved on that very same date as well. It's true!

[Mike70]

Atheists amuse me,
Most (don't want to generalize) that I've spoken with profess to hold rationality and science as the highest guiding principles in the Universe. What amuses me about a dogged disbelief in God is that by definition no true scientist would be willing to definitively state there is no God. Where's the evidence to prove or disprove a posited theory?

Now, if someone wants to state their categorical *belief* in the non-existence of any sort of God then hey, feel free.

If you want to state it as a fact though it would be nice if the facts that prove one's position were also supplied.


is it me or is this ridiculous? one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of such a being. while i call myself an atheist and do not believe in the existence (note the word believe) of a god such as the one in the bible or koran, i do keep myself open to the possibility of a universal prime mover or prime mind. that the universe itself is actually a living thing and we are all merely reflections of it. this is rather close to what the hindu religion believes in and is probably why i find the hindu faith to be the most intriguing of the major religions.

one of my major problems with god and the belief in him is the concept of sin. the idea that a being who could literally bring the universe and everything in it into existence with words becoming offended by something i do or say is, to me, laughably inane and something only a 4 year old could hold true.

[Trencher]

For genuinly good people I would say that it is perhaps 1% to 2% percent of the population.
For genuinly evil people I would say its about 2% - 4%.
The rest of of the people just want to get by maybe have some fun and not get into any trouble.

[MoonSylver]

is it me or is this ridiculous? one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of such a being. while i call myself an atheist and do not believe in the existence (note the word believe) of a god such as the one in the bible or koran, i do keep myself open to the possibility of a universal prime mover or prime mind. that the universe itself is actually a living thing and we are all merely reflections of it. this is rather close to what the hindu religion believes in and is probably why i find the hindu faith to be the most intriguing of the major religions.

I would suspect there are a lot of people who feel like you do. They believe in some sort of a supreme being, but don't buy organized religion. Agnostic: unsure as to if there is a god & if so what it is, but open to the possibility.

I myself am a spiritual person. Even religious to an extent, but not a member of any of the "big 3" (or even 4).

I do believe there is SOMETHING out there. When I think of something as large, complex & intricate, that works with such PRECISION as the universe, or the earth itself, I have a hard time accepting it is all an accident. The odds seem way too long.

I do think that anything that is powerful enough to have created all of THAT is so far beyond us that we CANNOT fathom it's thoughts or motives.

I think all of the worlds religions have SOME good ideas. SOME good concepts. But there are fanatics in ALL walks of life, who take things to extremes. That's where problems arise. That and accepting scriptures as literal truth.

What religion is trying to do (IMO) is put a face on the faceless, give form to something that is formless, infinite & incomprehensible. And that's ok. It's hard to interact with a "being" or an "entity". So we put a mask on god. We give "him" a face. Of course, it looks like us. What we need to realize is that MY concept of god is just as valid as YOURS. It's like an infinite diamond with unlimited facets. All that ALL of us are doing is glimpsing one little facet, not the whole diamond. There is no "right" & "wrong" way to view god, as long as we tolerate & respect each other, & do no harm, ESPECIALLY in the name of "god".

I DO think we can interact with "god", but not as a "genie who grants wishes" sort of way. I do believe that if god is infinite & all powerful then that means "he" is EVERYWHERE & EVERYTHING. You are part of god. So am I. So are the rocks & trees, the earth & moon, the sun & stars. Everything.

So, I think ALL religions have SOME validity. They are man made constructs that give a framework, a blueprint for tapping into something greater. It's when each of them views themselves as "authentic", given "directly from god" or the "one true way" that we have problems. They're all myth. Parable. Fable. Morality plays. And valid as such, with important lessons to teach, as long as we don't accept them as "literal, revealed truth".

I think I had more points to make, but my wife just got home & I'm going to visit my family for the holidays, so if you read this far, thanks for reading my ramblings & if interested I'll ramble more later. :lol:

(PS - all of the above is IMO ONLY. If you do not believe the same as I, that's cool too, as long as you respect my right to believe what I want, I will do the same to you.) :)

[Yojimbo]

I would suspect there are a lot of people who feel like you do. They believe in some sort of a supreme being, but don't buy organized religion. Agnostic: unsure as to if there is a god & if so what it is, but open to the possibility.

I myself am a spiritual person. Even religious to an extent, but not a member of any of the "big 3" (or even 4).

I do believe there is SOMETHING out there. When I think of something as large, complex & intricate, that works with such PRECISION as the universe, or the earth itself, I have a hard time accepting it is all an accident. The odds seem way too long.

I do think that anything that is powerful enough to have created all of THAT is so far beyond us that we CANNOT fathom it's thoughts or motives.

I think all of the worlds religions have SOME good ideas. SOME good concepts. But there are fanatics in ALL walks of life, who take things to extremes. That's where problems arise. That and accepting scriptures as literal truth.

What religion is trying to do (IMO) is put a face on the faceless, give form to something that is formless, infinite & incomprehensible. And that's ok. It's hard to interact with a "being" or an "entity". So we put a mask on god. We give "him" a face. Of course, it looks like us. What we need to realize is that MY concept of god is just as valid as YOURS. It's like an infinite diamond with unlimited facets. All that ALL of us are doing is glimpsing one little facet, not the whole diamond. There is no "right" & "wrong" way to view god, as long as we tolerate & respect each other, & do no harm, ESPECIALLY in the name of "god".

I DO think we can interact with "god", but not as a "genie who grants wishes" sort of way. I do believe that if god is infinite & all powerful then that means "he" is EVERYWHERE & EVERYTHING. You are part of god. So am I. So are the rocks & trees, the earth & moon, the sun & stars. Everything.

So, I think ALL religions have SOME validity. They are man made constructs that give a framework, a blueprint for tapping into something greater. It's when each of them views themselves as "authentic", given "directly from god" or the "one true way" that we have problems. They're all myth. Parable. Fable. Morality plays. And valid as such, with important lessons to teach, as long as we don't accept them as "literal, revealed truth".

I think I had more points to make, but my wife just got home & I'm going to visit my family for the holidays, so if you read this far, thanks for reading my ramblings & if interested I'll ramble more later. :lol:

(PS - all of the above is IMO ONLY. If you do not believe the same as I, that's cool too, as long as you respect my right to believe what I want, I will do the same to you.) :)


I am in total agreement, Moon.

Currently I think of myself as a Buddhist, though I would not consider myself devout and I personally don't really participate much with an organized church group, though I have no quarrel with those who do. I had previously identified myself as agnostic, and given the philosophies of the Buddhists, I think it was not a big leap to make. I guess I really didn't have to identify myself with a major church or temple to continue to be "spiritual" but I have found that sometimes it is nice to have a group to worship with and a Sensei to learn from.

Your philosophies and thoughts as stated in your post are quite close to what the Buddhists believe, especially your statement about religion being a means to "put a face on the faceless." My Sensei said that the statue of Buddha, for example, is not meant to be a true depiction of "God" but merely meant to make the infinite more relatable to human beings, and he also said that if we were dogs, then the statue of Buddah would be a that of a dog.

I agree that folks should believe what they want to believe and allow others to believe they wish. Anyways, would love to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.

[strayrider]

one of my major problems with god and the belief in him is the concept of sin. the idea that a being who could literally bring the universe and everything in it into existence with words becoming offended by something i do or say is, to me, laughably inane and something only a 4 year old could hold true.

Just for the sake of argument, Scip, is it at all possible that one of your own children might do or say something to offend you? Now, or in the future?

Keeping in mind that God created man in His own image, meaning that He is just like us (only with a power our limited minds cannot understand).

:D

-stray-

[strayrider]

"We have to doubt the existance of a God that creates us in his image, and then blames us for his mistakes."

Elaborate on this. Which mistake(s) are you, personally, being blamed for?


There are no sources, except for the New Testament (which was written centuries after it's alleged it took place) that suggest there was ever a man named Jesus Christ.

Actually, the bulk of the New Testament was written by Saul of Tarsus before his death in 64, or 67 AD, beheaded by Rome. And, there are non-Christian documents (Roman) which refer to Jesus as the leader of a "revolt" in occupied Isreal, executed by order of Pontius Pilate.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate06.html

:D

-stray-