How Many to Save the World?

**Wyldwraith** · 13-Dec-2008

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** · 13-Dec-2008

Originally Posted by Dommm

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** · 13-Dec-2008

Originally Posted by MoonSylver

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** · 14-Dec-2008

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** · 15-Dec-2008

Originally Posted by 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?

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).

-stray-

ps --

Looking good, Kid.

**sandrock74** · 15-Dec-2008

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.