Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People

[JWeinCom]

sundin13 said:

JWeinCom said:

I was under the impression that Noah's Flood was not viewed as literal, even by most Christians.  If anyone actually believes that one family literally created an ark, literally filled it with two of each animals, the earth was literally flooded, and the water literally disappeared and left the water cycle... Well then I am happy to belittle that idea, whether or not people appreciate it.  I mean, if people take the story metaphorically I can respectuflly disagree, but if people take it literally, I'm not going to lie and say I don't find that ridiculous.

Yes.  It is very hard to believe that killing innocent people and animals is anything good.  Even IF this was necessary, could god not have done it in such a way to avoid suffering?  Was it necessary to drown animals?  Newborns?  

Of course, this is interpretation of literature, so there is no fact, but I believe that killing nearly every living thing is pretty much the most hateful thing that can be done.

Again, whether or not it is metaphorical, there are ways to have a discussion without being incredibly rude.

As for everything else, I have already explained myself. Both sides of this argument are not based on fact, and your interpretations do not necessarily speak to the truth of the matter. The fact is, this can be explained in a way that doesn't involved hate, whether or not you accept that explanation is irrelevant. The great flood, metaphorical or not, cannot be used to disprove the statement that "Christianity is against expressions of hate". Moreso, after the great flood, God swore to solemnly promised to never do such a thing again, so it is somewhat irrelevant to the modern principles of the religion.

God says he will never destory the world with a flood.  He can still destroy it any other way he wants.  He keeps his options open.  And, this topic was about whether the bible could suport hatred, so the old testament is relevant.  

The simple fact is that an omnipotent loving god could have done this in a way with no collateral damage.  He could have had every sinner have a heart attack in his sleep.  He could have just poofed them out of existence, right?  He could have... you know.... not drowned everyone and everything, including things which had never done anything wrong.

It is impossible to believe that this method was not chosen particularly to inflict suffering.  Drowning is a particularly agonizing way to go.