The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

[Danmark]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man. It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.
Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

[Danmark]

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

On what basis do you declare your definition of "evil" to be the only "reasonable definition of the term" and binding on the Hebrew term that the English translators chose to apply that term to.

Where did you read the word "only?" I presume you are aware "any" and "only" have different meanings.

Well, you said that any reasonable definition would agree with what you call evil in the first paragraph. However, if you insist on being pedantic, on what basis do you say that there isn't any reasonable definition of the term that does not include those things.

Just make your case that killing every living thing on Earth is not Evil.
Make your case that purposely inflicting physical or emotional pain is not evil.
What is your argument that asking a man to kill his own son, just to see if he will follow orders, is not evil?

You've made a personal attack and accusation that I'm being 'pedantic.' I see it simply as a logical examination of English. There may be dozens of definitions of evil. I suggest that reasonable people will agree the examples I gave are examples of evil.

Tell us why they are not, if that is what you believe.

[Danmark]

In modern terms, the Ark was a "DNA Repository Craft", most Christians nowadays know it would have been impossible to get thousands of full-sized creatures aboard..
Incidentally Isaac Asimov once put forward the interesting theory that a gigantic meteorite splashed into the Indian Ocean, raising tsunamis that swamped the earth and washed the Ark up the Tigris/Euphrates valley to Turkey's Mt Ararat..

No doubt you can provide the appropriate link / citation to the relevant article / paper, containing this assertion by Asimov.

It's probably right next to the article on how to build a spaceship out of Legos.

[Danmark]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history,...

Foul. I get that you believe the great flood is a myth, but the premise with which you began this thread is itself an assumption of falsehood/myth. Whether the flood took place is not a settled and proven matter except in the minds of some people. We can examine evidence for or against the flood, but to assume that it never took place considering that none of us alive today were there to witness the flood or the lack of a flood at that time, is a faulty premise.

...it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man.

Evil, perhaps, in your definition of the word, but it sounds like your definition of evil is based on pop culture and not on biblical exegesis.

It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.

"the god who perpetrated this evil" is again an example of assuming congruence between your understanding of evil and how evil is understood biblically.

Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

I'm not sure what you mean by "shortly," but from Adam to the flood took about 1,500 years according to the biblical timeline. Also, he did not call "all of his creation" evil. Mankind had enough information to live in a manner that would bring blessing to themselves and please their Creator, but they chose otherwise. This leads to a tangential argument about the creation of good and evil in the garden, however, which I will avoid following here. Finally, I don't see where God changed his mind about who he was going to wipe out. As I read the account in Genesis 6, it seems pretty consistent on that point.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

As bluethread pointed out, you are superimposing a definition of evil that is your own, or at least one that is not equivalent with the biblical context. God made lobsters. Lobsters have pincher claws that hurt people when people are pinched. Does that make lobsters evil? No, lobsters have a purpose, which is to eat ("clean up") the dead and decaying fish that eventually sink to the bottom. That makes lobsters good by biblical understanding.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

"It's obvious..." is yet another assumption. You might as well as begun with, "Everybody knows..." Perhaps you feel that this God doesn't set a good example because you recognize in the story that you would not have been among the few on the ark. Naturally, any God that would not bend over backward to make an exception for you must be evil, right?

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

Again with the assumptions... God's destruction of most living things on Earth is evil by popular culture's standards. Is capital punishment evil? Some say yes, others say no. Reasonable people disagree. Here, God was exercising capital punishment. You're so concerned with assuming that God is evil for doing so that it apparently doesn't even cross your mind to ask or wonder why or to look for patterns in how God interacts with his creation.

Your whole argument is based on assumption and innuendo.

Prove it. Certainly I reject the Bible as the authority on morality, since the flood and the story of Abraham represent clearly evil acts if they are taken as true.

Only in the fantasy realm of "Whatever God does is good, because he is God" is killing others not evil. Remember, according to the story, at first God is going to kill EVERYone, and every animal. The fact these animals, including homo sapiens, will feel pain, is a matter of no apparent concern. Then he changes his mind and settles for killing 99.99% or so.

Let's put it this way, if it were anyone except this imaginary God who performed such acts, would you say they were not evil? Go ahead, make your case.

All I've done is take the Christian literalists at their word, and treat this ridiculous fiction as if it were true. Then you call 'foul' for taking them at their word.

What say you? Did it really happen as depicted in Genesis?
Is it just a myth?
If Hitler does it, it's evil; but if God does the same thing, it's good?
Is that your standard for morality?

[ttruscott]

...

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.'

So would I and that is why I believe the flood was an act of execution against criminals for egregious violence. Not wanton, but a righteous judgment as written.

I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.'

So, when your continued description of my GOD as evil causes me dismay and some emotional upset and pain, you are admitting to being evil to me?

You left our the modifier wanton here so I see no answer - you obviously reject all forms of punishment as all punishment has an element of pain to it. How very anarchistic...

I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

All definitions of torture include the phrase "for the purpose of" which means that the same acts inflicting pain for a different purpose is not torture... The purpose of judgement, even though it is felt as a severe pain is free of the contention of torture because it does not have the intent that the word torture is designed to cover.

To claim any infliction of pain is torture seems naive and not accepted by anyone else I know of. Your claims to the contrary do not persuade me as they seem to be unsubstantiated.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.'

So would I and that is why I believe the flood was an act of execution against criminals for egregious violence. Not wanton, but a righteous judgment as written.

Is this to say that it was "righteous judgment" to execute children, infants and unborn (as well as other innocents) for being "criminals" guilty of "egregious violence"? Kindly describe a violent criminal unborn or infant.

Is it "righteous judgment" to kill children, infants and unborn because their parents or civic leaders are criminals?

Is it "righteous" to kill children "because little ones grow up to be big ones" (i.e., they will probably be criminals when adult)?


Would it not make far more sense to admit that the flood tale was myth, legend, folklore than to try fruitlessly to defend it as "righteous"?

[Danmark]

...

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.'

So would I and that is why I believe the flood was an act of execution against criminals for egregious violence. Not wanton, but a righteous judgment as written.

OK. Let's accept for the sake of argument that every human being at the time, babes included, were violent criminals. Were the other animals violent criminals? The giraffe? The Koala bear? The Giant Panda? Was Zeb's faithful dog Nimrod corrupt? Drowning kittens? Is that this God's idea of a good time and "righteous judgment?"

Yet God decided to spare Ham, who is soon to laugh at his father lying drunk and naked, and Noah, the old drunk. This is a very interesting God. He drowns kittens, but saves old drunks and mockers.

Why not just admit the obvious: It never happened. If there is a God, he's a lot better than miserable old evil despot depicted in the flood myth. If there really is a God, he's probably chuckling along with me at the silliness of all this. I expect to hear from him any day now.

[ttruscott]

.

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.'

Kindly describe a violent criminal unborn or infant.

imCo
Satan, before he is born as a human and when he is just an infant..

Is it "righteous judgment" to kill children, infants and unborn because their parents or civic leaders are criminals?

No, Christians are told it is not this way by Ez 18:19 Yet you ask, Why does the son not share the guilt of his father? Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

People only suffer for their own sins. Therefor, in this dialectic it is logical to conclude that suffering proves a lack of innocence, that is, proves guilt for sin. Since children suffer, they must be guilty. Also, because I reject the theologies that claim GOD therefore must have created them as sinful, I am forced to conclude that they became sinful by their own free will before they were conceived as human, as I have claimed over and over. You may disagree with the reality because it cannot be proven but the logic has never been disagreed with.

Is it "righteous" to kill children "because little ones grow up to be big ones" (i.e., they will probably be criminals when adult)?

Since this reason for killing anyone is not discussed in the bible as HIS reason for judgement, I hesitate to speculate. The (unproven Christian) claim is that young sinners will be sinners at every age of their life until/unless they are reborn and redeemed as per the Christian doctrine of salvation.

Would it not make far more sense to admit that the flood tale was myth, legend, folklore than to try fruitlessly to defend it as "righteous"?

It used to make more sense to believe the myth hypothesis before I had my conversion experience but now I cannot accept that as a depiction of the reality I have experienced.

[bluethread]

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

On what basis do you declare your definition of "evil" to be the only "reasonable definition of the term" and binding on the Hebrew term that the English translators chose to apply that term to.

Where did you read the word "only?" I presume you are aware "any" and "only" have different meanings.

Well, you said that any reasonable definition would agree with what you call evil in the first paragraph. However, if you insist on being pedantic, on what basis do you say that there isn't any reasonable definition of the term that does not include those things.

Just make your case that killing every living thing on Earth is not Evil.
Make your case that purposely inflicting physical or emotional pain is not evil.
What is your argument that asking a man to kill his own son, just to see if he will follow orders, is not evil?

You've made a personal attack and accusation that I'm being 'pedantic.' I see it simply as a logical examination of English. There may be dozens of definitions of evil. I suggest that reasonable people will agree the examples I gave are examples of evil.

Tell us why they are not, if that is what you believe.

Well, since you are referring to things that are recorded in the Scriptures, we should look at the term that is translated as evil in the Scriptures. That term is ra', a clear reference to the deity of the Egyptians and by associations, the nations. So, the terms tov(good) and ra'(evil) are references to what is acceptable to Adonai. However, if one wishes to use a different concept one would have to define that view. Now, I am not arguing that you can not see those things as fitting the modern English definition of those terms. However, those are not ra', but tov. Adonai destroying MOST of life on earth not "evil", in the biblical prospective, nor is Adonai inflicting physical or emotional pain, or the trial of Avram.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Something I never hear brought up about the flood story.

The Bible claims that every mountain peak was covered in water..........that means the Alps and Mt. Everest if we are to believe this is worldwide as the fundies claim.

Now have any of you ever flow in general aviation? Planes with no pressured cabins?

What happens above 15,000 ft........Alps peaks (you don't have much air and if you go higher need a a pressurized cabin to go up to around 36,000 ft.....the Mt. Everest peak......

Its so frickin cold outside and the air is so thin you can't breath and would freeze to death..................yet this boat is carrying all these creatures and is floating on top of water line that covers the tops of those peaks worldwide??

WTF????

How can any critical thinking person of modern times think this is anything more than a mythical story than to accept such nonsense from ancient prescientific superstitious humans........

Okay okay.........since Christ refers to the flood as an actual even Christians have to sallow this hook line and sinker because if Christ is wrong............well their whole world view falls apart............

WTF again.........

[Hamsaka]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man. It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.
Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

There's a thread in the Theology forum about how God's creation, if pronounced as 'good' by him, could somehow conceive of what would constitute 'evil' or sinful behavior. The Adam and Eve tale and the Flood tale don't look all that different from each other, except there were a lot more hopelessly evil people to be dealt with, and no place to exile them to but death.

Don't disobey God . . . or else. This was the ancient mind-set, and it makes sense in the context of a world with much more brutal consequences for disobedience than the one we currently live in.

Modern geological sciences have ruled out a whole-Earth flood to the mountain tops. A regionally severe flood seems reasonable, but if I recall correctly, even this isn't showing up in the earth strata for the supposed time (please correct me if I'm wrong). There's no reason to haggle over whether or not there was ever a whole earth flood, much less an ark full of animals. What is reasonable for debate is comparing ancient moral sensitivities with modern ones, the Flood is a moral tale after all.

Like the Garden of Eden story, the Flood story shows the flawed nature of strict obedience as the basis for morality. It casts Yahweh in a terrible light in modern moral and ethical sensibilities. Out of superstitious dread or habitual denial perhaps, there hasn't been a rational theistic defense or explanation on this thread yet. Only if there are several additional (and arbitrary!) suppositions mitigating Yahweh's behavior does the Flood story retain any sense at all. Either we have to assume everyone, including infants and children were somehow 'evil', or Yahweh appears unreasonably cruel. What if he just is? There's certainly plenty MORE evidence for that, from a human point of view.