Is the story of The Flood ethical?

[dangerdan]

If one is to assume the story of The Flood to be literally correct, can God's actions be deemed the most unjust, unethical and immoral acts in the history of the earth?

[ST88]

I wonder if you consider that these others who believe in a standard fixed penalty are holding a piece of doctrine that appears unfair, or do you consider them to have erred in interpreting the doctrinal information?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I think in the case of the fermenting American Protestant right-wing evangelical movement, it's a direct result of the perceived wildness of the 19th century American mind. It's going to take a lot to get people like that to sit up and pay attention. Same thing with 19th century Ireland, with late Catholicism's description of Hell so vividly evoked by James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

In this life our sorrows are either not very long or not very great because nature either overcomes them by habits or puts an end to them by sinking under their weight. But in hell the torments cannot be overcome by habit. For whie they are of terrible intensity they are the same time of contiunal variety, each pain, so to speak, taking fire from another and reendowing that which has enkindled it with a still fiercer flame... ever to be eaten with flames, gnawed by vermin, goaded with burning spikes, never to be free from those pains; ever to have the conscience upbraid one, the memory enrage, the mind filled with darkness and despair, never to escape.

It's quite a stunning read and a real showstopping number if you've never read the book before. In the movie, John Gielgud does the sermon, which is quite effective.

Christianity as a religion has had 2000 years to shape and hone its message, with a different message for every age. This is done largely by natural selection, with the most effective arguments staying in the canon, and the least effective ones falling by the wayside and being swept under the rug. I think an effective religious symbolism shown by The Flood has been that God showed mercy to Noah and his family even as he showed malice towards the rest of the world. This is how a righteous family would have seen his fellow man, as Noah's family saw everyone else. An example of a doctrine that has fallen out of favor because of popular tastes is the idea of the wafer turning into the body of Christ and the wine turning into the blood of Christ in the mouth. I remember a cheeky group of scientists in the 70s that wanted to actually find out if the cracker turned into human flesh at Communion by placing some kind of detection mechanism in the mouth of a believer.

But, as our right-wing Protestant friends might say, better to exaggerate and save people than downplay and let them burn.

[Corvus]

I wonder if you consider that these others who believe in a standard fixed penalty are holding a piece of doctrine that appears unfair, or do you consider them to have erred in interpreting the doctrinal information?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I think in the case of the fermenting American Protestant right-wing evangelical movement, it's a direct result of the perceived wildness of the 19th century American mind. It's going to take a lot to get people like that to sit up and pay attention. Same thing with 19th century Ireland, with late Catholicism's description of Hell so vividly evoked by James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

In this life our sorrows are either not very long or not very great because nature either overcomes them by habits or puts an end to them by sinking under their weight. But in hell the torments cannot be overcome by habit. For whie they are of terrible intensity they are the same time of contiunal variety, each pain, so to speak, taking fire from another and reendowing that which has enkindled it with a still fiercer flame... ever to be eaten with flames, gnawed by vermin, goaded with burning spikes, never to be free from those pains; ever to have the conscience upbraid one, the memory enrage, the mind filled with darkness and despair, never to escape.

It's quite a stunning read and a real showstopping number if you've never read the book before. In the movie, John Gielgud does the sermon, which is quite effective.

I loved the book, and hope to start Ulysses soon after I get a few other "must reads" out of the way.

[otseng]

Ok, lets delve into it, first things first -

1. The people were not innocent

Ok, this is the simple assumption that "everyone was simply corrupt".

I do not assume this. Again, Gen 6:5 says, "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. "

Next would follow the question, "where did the corruption come from? Who is responsible for it?" And when you boil it down, I think, the answer is "the corruption came from god himself". (this argument is also known as "the problem of evil" and "Einsteins paradox").

God is not responsible for man's corruption. Since this idea has been brought up before, I'll start a new topic on it - Is God ultimately responsible for mankind's sins?

This way of thinking, that "the corrupt should be smited for being corrupt" is the exact opposite to the philosophy of the new testament (the corrupt should be shown love). Is there any explanation for Gods sudden 180 turn of treating corruption? Did he have a mid-life crisis? (sorry, forgive my little joke)

... because it was in the Old Testament? (half joking here too)

2. The people were warned of judgement

Talk about a lame way to warn the world of impending doom!

It doesn't matter if it was lame according to your standards or not. The point is that they were warned.

3. And a way of escape was made available

Could everyone fit on the ark? How many people were in the world? A thousand? A million? This way of escape, coupled with the erroneous method of warning, doesnt seem very well thought out plan.

How many people were there in the world prior to the flood? I have no idea. And neither does the Bible say. But asking if everyone could fit on it is not relevant. Would someone say, "Hey, this boat can't fit everyone in the world on it, therefore I'm not going to get in it."?

Anyways, a way of escape was made available. One might argue this was not a great method to escape the flood, but it doesn't refute that a way of escape was provided.

[otseng]

A question for Otseng: If the story of the flood was somehow, proven to be false or make-believe (this is not saying it can be proven), would you continue to defend God's actions in this case as not unethical, or would you turn 180 degrees and rescind your arguments?

It's difficult to answer, especially since it's a double hypothetical question.

If it was proved that the flood did not occur, then the whole point of debating about it would be pointless.

I would like to know if your basis for the flawlessness of God is based on defending everything that the Bible says, or from an inner understanding of Him.

It's based on my understanding of reading the Bible.

Also if you may, I'd like your take on the two questions I posed in my previous post.

Just a general note to people who ask a question and I don't respond. I'm not intentionally avoiding any questions. But, with the sheer volume of questions that gets asked and my extremely limited time, I'm not able to get to all questions in a timely manner. (I sometimes wonder if there are any other Christians on the Internet that respond to the amount of questions posed by atheists/agnostics that I do. And if there are, how do they have the time to do it?) Feel free to remind me of any questions posed. And if I don't get back to that, feel free to PM me. OK, back to your regular scheduled programming....

Going slightly off-topic: does anyone have any idea how many people there were back in the pre-flood days? If there were, say, a million people or so back then, how was Noah even half serious about fitting them all in a floating wooden box?

I have no idea.

Does the flood mean that Noah is the supreme ancestor?

Yes.

[fonso]

Sorry 'bout that. I didn't specify which questions:

Quote:

Take the case of innocent children.
Innocent children is another matter.


Question 1. Reading the thread, if we were to consider that children go to Heaven, would you say that all five-year old kids back then were so wicked that they failed God's standard of being worthy?

Question 2. And how about those who were younger? It sounds like God is saying :'They're going to Heaven anyway so it's okay for me to fill their lungs with water 'til they die. I'm doing them a favor anyway'. Again, back to the first issue in my previous post:

"They're not saved anyway so there's no loss for them in killing them off"
"They're already saved so they have everything to gain."

Humanists and many others will not find the 'ends justifies the means' methodology of this God appealing.

I am continuing the debate in the case of children because I think that killing them makes everything unethical. I'd like your input too. Thanks.

[otseng]

I am continuing the debate in the case of children because I think that killing them makes everything unethical.

I personally believe that children are innocent so that they would not be judged sinful.

Yes, it would be bad for a child, or anyone, to die by drowning. Then again, it can also be argued that it would be bad to die by any cause (tornado, earthquake, heart attack, cancer, etc).

[fonso]

I am continuing the debate in the case of children because I think that killing them makes everything unethical.

I personally believe that children are innocent so that they would not be judged sinful.

Yes, it would be bad for a child, or anyone, to die by drowning. Then again, it can also be argued that it would be bad to die by any cause (tornado, earthquake, heart attack, cancer, etc).

Then I suppose that there is nothing left to debate about the story being ethical or not. It will ultimately depend on the person -- if he condones the fact that God willingly kills children, or that his ways are justified as they are beyond human comprehension, the story will be ethical. Likewise, for those who are against all of these, they will never accept such a god.