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.

[ttruscott]

...
If God is love and/or good, then who is evil?

...

Everyone created in HIS image who by their free will rejected YHWH's deity or HIS plans for HIS creation. Some rejected HIM permanently, others only temporarily.

[ttruscott]

Interesting viewpoint. Would you agree that this act of God to craftily draw HaSatan into revealing his evil nature as "beguiling"?

Beguile
verb
To trick or deceive.
To attract or interest someone.

Perhaps. But every other instance it is used in the Bible it refers to an enticing argument or emotional pressure to get the action desired. All YHWWH had to do was to say , Have you seen Job over there, a good man? and Satan took off running to get in his licks.

[Edit: I bet Satan thought he was beguiling GOD when he started in against Job's righteousness as only fear and then he thought he had GOD when GOD allowed him his way.]

So I'm not sure beguiling is exactly the correct word since there was no deception involved in HIS words, no, you will not surely die, just a hidden agenda which Satan could have refused to fall into if he was able.

[ttruscott]

...
And how do you know any of this?

It is a matter of study, of following the Holy Spirit and learning from some other people.

Does this theory of yours that contradicts Calvinism and Catholicism have a name?

I tend to call it Pre-Conception Existence Christianity (PCEC) theology but it is referred to by shorter less inclusive names like pre-existence, pre-life existence or pre-earthly existence lives.

Or is it your own private theory?

Private? Not hardly after 3yrs teaching it openly. If you mean am I the only believer, then no to that also. It is shared by quite a few.

Is it based on a story about talking snakes and a god who allows his people to be tortured by Satan?

No sir. It explains the story with talking snakes and a GOD who allows his people to be tortured by Satan.

What is your authority to call Calvinism and Catholicism "blasphemy."

My authority is my understanding of the reality they deny which impugns GOD's good name of love and holiness.

If you want to call Christianity "blasphemy," so be it.

I do not call Christianity blasphemy, I call their interpretation of Christianity blasphemy.

[ttruscott]

The fact that GOD initiated this event with Satan is proof to me that HE was in cahoots with Job to expose Satan as so evil that all he needed was to be allowed to attack and he willingly monsters the most holy old man on earth! Job and GOD worked together to expose the true depths of Satanism and they sucked him in good.

Job was 'in cahoots' with God? So the entire story is a lie, according to you. The essence of the story is the conflict between God and Job. Job questions God. The denouement is when God answers Job and asks him who he thinks he is to question him. God demands to know Job's authority and the basis for his knowledge.
..

Like every sinner on earth Job's memories of HIS pre-earthly life were repressed by his addiction to sin (see Romans chapter 1) so GOD took the opportunity to fill out the story to its conclusion for our, the readers, sake.

Consider: Job is painted as perfect without sin on earth. But GOD convinces him (us) he is a sinner after all the specious arguments are rejected. HE does this part while reminding him of the part he played at the creation of the universe Job 38:1-7, especially verse 7.

The conclusion then can be drawn that since (if?) he never sinned on earth yet he is rightly convicted of being a sinner, he must have sinned pre-earth either before or after he was in the heavenly chorus singing GOD's praise for HIS divinity and power (Rom 1:20) which he later repressed due to love for sin, (the rest of Rom 1).

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 889 by Buy Oz Moses]

I spoke against your anti Omni-everything bit, not your reasoning about HIS omniscience.

IF omniscience is defined as you have taken it from the pagan Greeks, you are correct but I contend that your premise is wrong since it does mean HE created that which HE knew would create evil, a blasphemy which is solved by the Biblical definition of HIS being all knowing as knowing all about what HE decreed to be ...

which leaves it open to suggest that if HE did NOT decree something into being like the results of our free will choices then HE would not know them until we chose those results by our free will.

I'm sorry you missed this when I explained it a bit further back in this thread,; it would have saved you some work with your chart and all.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 880 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=chartreuse] IF omniscience is defined as you have taken it from the pagan Greeks, you are correct but I contend that your premise is wrong since it does mean HE created that which HE knew would create evil, a blasphemy which is solved by the Biblical definition of HIS being all knowing as knowing all about what HE decreed to be ... which leaves it open to suggest that [b]if HE did NOT decree something into being like the results of our free will choices then HE would not know them until we chose those results by our free will. [/b] I'm sorry you missed this when I explained it a bit further back in this thread,; it would have saved you some work with your chart and all. ~ ttruscott post 894 [/color][color=gainsboro] No need to apologize, I read what you wrote in that post. It's just that you also stated this here as well: [/color][color=chartreuse] the possibility of evil WAS foreseen as shown by the choice of Christ to be the slain lamb [u]before creation[/u]. How could HE give us free will to self create ourselves as either holy or eternally evil and not foresee that our choosing evil was possible??? ~ ttruscott post 879 [/color][color=gainsboro] I can admit my mistake and retract my making a definitive assertion about Evil certainly being created as a result of mans creation. It was only a probability in Gods (nonGreek) omniscient view, and, correct me if I'm wrong, he only knows all about what he has decreed. So he doesn't know all by the standard use of the term all-knowing, meaning to literally know everything. He could see possible outcomes of what [i]could [/i]be chosen, but could not see the specific outcome that would [i]actually [/i]be chosen. If this is correct, the chart still stands, but with slight adjustments. Possible choice 1: [/color]

[col color=lightslategray][b]Choice: [/b][col color=lightslategray][center][b]God[/b][/center][col color=lightslategray] [center][b]Can Create a Bride[/b][/center][col color=lightslategray] [center][b]Might have to Destroy Evil[/b][/center][col color=lightslategray] [center][b]God + Bride[/b][/center][row color=white][b]Result: [/b][col color=white] [center][b]Everything is Good[/b][/center][col color=white] [center][b]Evil Could be Created[/b][/center][col color=white] [center][b]Some Creations Might Suffer[/b][/center][col color=white] [center][b]Everything is Good[/b][/center]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro]Possible choice 2: [/color]

[col color=lightslategray][b]Choice: [/b][col color=lightslategray][center][b]God[/b][/center][col color=lightslategray] [center][b]Does Not Create Bride[/b][/center][col color=lightslategray] [center][b]Nothing Destroyed[/b][/center][col color=lightslategray] [center][b]God[/b][/center][row color=white][b]Result: [/b][col color=white] [center][b]Everything is Good[/b][/center][col color=white] [center][b]Evil is Not Created[/b][/center][col color=white] [center][b]Nothing Suffers[/b][/center][col color=white] [center][b]Everything is Good[/b][/center]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] God feels it is wise to have [b]the possibility that[/b] Evil could be created and for some to suffer or be destroyed so that everything can be good, rather than having a guarantee that no evil will be created and ensuring none would suffer so that everything can be good. The dilemma still stands if God is somewhat omniscient [/color]

[col color=lightslategray][center][b]God is Omniscient[/b][/center] [row color=white] [center][b]God Creates Jesus at the beginning[/b][/center][row color=white] [center][b]God Foresaw the [u]Possible[/u] Creation of Evil[/b][/center]

[col color=lightslategray][center][b]God is Now Given a Choice[/b][/center] [row color=white] [center][b]Create Man and Allow the [u]Possible[/u] Creation of Evil[/b][/center][row color=white] [center][b]Do Not Create Man and Do Not Allow the Creation of Evil[/b][/center]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] [b]Responsible[/b] [i]adjective[/i] being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it. synonyms: accountable, answerable, to blame, guilty, culpable, blameworthy, at fault, in the wrong "if an error's been made, I'm the one who's responsible" It was Gods choice that allowed the possibility of EvilIf God is omniscient he is responsible for the creation of Evil. He could have chosen not to gamble with the wellbeing of his creations and once receiving insight of the possibility of what Evil would be, and that evil might require the sacrifice of his son and the loss of so many souls(or even one soul for that matter) he could have just backed away and not have been responsible for throwing in motion the major event that lead us to the moment of the flood...giving us a choice... [/color][color=chartreuse][b]08:95[/b] [/color]

[PghPanther]

...

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??

...

Ummm, until you prove that any mountain was this high at the time of the flood and were not pushed up to these heights afterword, perhaps by the release of the water from within the mantle which would cause a lot of land mass instability, your point holds no sway.

Okay then.......so in 4,000 years the Alps and Mt. Everest elevated peaks over 10 to 30,000 ft in that time to make up the difference today?

That's homeschooling geography claims if I ever heard it.....

[Zzyzx]

.

Ummm, until you prove that any mountain was this high at the time of the flood and were not pushed up to these heights afterword, perhaps by the release of the water from within the mantle which would cause a lot of land mass instability, your point holds no sway.

In reasoned debate or discussion those who claim "the mountains were (or might have been) much lower back then" are expected to support their contentions " not demand that others prove them wrong (a massive blunder in logic).

We know the configuration of the Earth rather precisely and can measure rates of change (that are very slow " typically about the rate at which fingernails grow).

Okay then.......so in 4,000 years the Alps and Mt. Everest elevated peaks over 10 to 30,000 ft in that time to make up the difference today?

No credible evidence has been presented that elevations changed rapidly. A discredited theory of sudden massive changes in elevation was known as Catastrophism. Proponents could not demonstrate that such things happened (outside of imagination).

That's homeschooling geography claims if I ever heard it.....

Hey, let's not be insulting homeschooling geography. Many home schooled student I have encountered had FAR better understanding. Perhaps it should be identified as "Creationist geography" or "imagination geography" instead.

[ttruscott]

...

the possibility of evil WAS foreseen as shown by the choice of Christ to be the slain lamb before creation. How could HE give us free will to self create ourselves as either holy or eternally evil and not foresee that our choosing evil was possible??? ~ ttruscott post 879

It was only a probability in Gods (nonGreek) omniscient view, and, correct me if I'm wrong, he only knows all about what he has decreed. So he doesn't know all by the standard use of the term all-knowing, meaning to literally know everything. He could see possible outcomes of what could be chosen, but could not see the specific outcome that would actually be chosen.
If this is correct, the chart still stands, but with slight adjustments.

Yes, if we mean the same things by the language, it is correct.

God feels it is wise to have the possibility that Evil could be created and for some to suffer or be destroyed so that everything can be good, rather than having a guarantee that no evil will be created and ensuring none would suffer so that everything can be good.

I would write: "God feels it is wise to have the possibility that Evil could be created and even though it creates the POSSIBILITY that some will suffer or be destroyed..." Nothing new here.

But the idea that by ensuring no evil will be created so no suffering could ensue means "that everything can be good" is a fallacy. If good in this context is a moral value and not just a description of this working according to plan, (ie, expediency), then it must be based on a choice. A machine can be turned on mechanically, or wirelessly or by a built in code but it is not making a choice to turn on. If the machine does some moral looking act, it does not make the machine nor the act morally good, only expediently good, that is, good to its purpose. Without free will and the possibility of choosing evil, your are a machine running out your programming, not morally good at all. As a robotic computer running someone else's programs does it matter if you are meat or metal? Nope, it does not.

Yes, GOD could have made a universe like this, no free will, no good-no bad, like the Eastern religions suggest, but to what purpose? And since true morals are important to HIM as HIS fight against evil shows clearly, it proves that our free will must have also been important to HIM which leaves the possibility, opposite to your phobia about suffering (which would repress free will, love and true marriage if even one person suffers) that He was willing to give us all free will with the possible creation of evil if even one person was willing to become holy and morally righteous and the rest rejected HIM...which would seem to stress that the nature of the value of true (not robotic) moral goodness is infinitely higher than the avoidance of suffering.

The dilemma still stands if God is somewhat omniscient

No dilemma, this is merely a confirmation of my stance ...nothing's changed, just attitude. To achieve HIS goal HE must have given us free will. BN thinks that no free will with therefore no chance of true love nor true marriage with GOD is an acceptable price to pay for no evil. I am of the opinion that YHWH did not agree. A tiny increase of moral righteousness, holiness, true love and a true marriage is to be held infinitely above the disvalue of any amount of suffering under and for evil.

[ttruscott]

We know the configuration of the Earth rather precisely and can measure rates of change (that are very slow " typically about the rate at which fingernails grow).

Unsupported contention that the rate has not been subject to change...

Christians claim:

That Flood accomplished abundant geologic work. Eroding sediments here, redepositing them there, pushing up continents, elevating plateaus, denuding terrains, etc., so that the earth today is quite different from before. Today even mountain ranges rise high above the sea.

Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments...

Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. [Google "Clam shells at the top of Everest?" for About 28,900 results.] These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes.

Psalm 104:1-4, though poetry, agrees with Isaiah 54:9 that the waters of Noah would never again cover the Earth. Clearly Christians believe that the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the Earth's topography. New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

Christians attribute the change in the earth from low hills to the Himalayan peaks to be by the miracle of GOD which cannot be proven but as a contention fits firmly within the morals and purpose of the GOD of the Bible.

Why no records of this? There were no cultures (all died) to keep records of what happened except Noah and his family and they, in the mid-east were probably not privy to the fate of the Indian sub continent et al.

And as always, all my contentions are not contentions of fact but of the Christian pov.