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?

[otseng]

And cursing the world for the actions of one man seems perfectly normal?

How would you define "normal"?

And this judgment was "You know what? Those guys over there are sinning, not that they have any choice after my curse I placed on humanity after Adam and Eve. But anyway, the punishment will beummmDEATH!to almost the entire world!!! I think Ill kill them withummwater. Nice change from fire and brimstone I think"

Here, you assume that God has no right to kill his creations. Though it wouldn't be nice for us humans if he arbitrarily decides who gets to live, it still is within his right to decide who dies.

God created all of us. So, by this fact alone, he has the right to destroy us. One might then ask, does a father have the right to kill his children? No. Because though the father might have provided the sperm, he didn't actually "create" a child. Suppose a scientist named Frankenstein created a living creature out of spare parts from his garage. Does he then have the right to kill it? Yes, since he created it.

[fonso]

God created all of us. So, by this fact alone, he has the right to destroy us. One might then ask, does a father have the right to kill his children? No. Because though the father might have provided the sperm, he didn't actually "create" a child. Suppose a scientist named Frankenstein created a living creature out of spare parts from his garage. Does he then have the right to kill it? Yes, since he created it.

I might agree with you on this one, but back to the topic:

If he did so, that is -- destroy so many of his children, which he did, according to the OT.... does that still make him the perfect God that we ought to think He is? This doesn't seem very 'ethical' to me.

[dangerdan]

Very true. It would seem then that the Judaist/Christian God is an angry God that needs appeasing, Much like the Aztec or ancient Greek gods.

[otseng]

If he did so, that is -- destroy so many of his children, which he did, according to the OT.... does that still make him the perfect God that we ought to think He is? This doesn't seem very 'ethical' to me.

I've stated my argument that God's action of destroying everyone in the flood was not immoral/unethical. And so far, the argument hasn't been refuted.

If you could, please state your argument why it was unethical.

I've also started a new thread to debate God killing humans - Does God have the right to kill humans?

[fonso]

If you could, please state your argument why it was unethical.

Ethical - Of, relating to, or dealing with ethics, or being in accordance with the accepted principles that govern the conduct of a profession.

accepted by who? by God Himself? Then there's no need for the debate.

Ethics - A set of principles of right conduct.

You statement claims that God was not immoral in flooding the world. He certainly wasn't moral either! ('moral' - teaching or exhibiting goodness of a character and behavior)

He may have been good in giving his kids a spanking, but he sent many of them to an eternity in Hell in doing so.

Again, this debate will rely solely on what is acceptable to you and to me, your defense being the Bible. The discussion will even likely extend to what is right and wrong? I certainly cannot accept a God who has an uncreative and hair-raising solution to a problem that He, in his perfection, ought to easily solve in a myriad of ways. Put yourself in the shoes...er...sandals of one of the 'uninformed'. Would you have accepted him as your 'perfect' God? Was everyone truly such evil spawns of God almighty that he totally spared no one except Noah and co. (what about all the women and poor, innocent children)? Maybe he could have done the "slightly not so evil" humans a favor by plucking them from the ground and putting them on the ark. I doubt Noah could have travelled the ends of the earth to warn and account for every single human being as well. Otherwise, the bible would have known that the world was round all along.

Whether God was justified in doing what He did or not, a question I would like to ask about what God did is -- is this perfection?

Veracity of the flood story aside, I find the story very uninspiring and wrathful on the part of God.

[otseng]

He may have been good in giving his kids a spanking, but he sent many of them to an eternity in Hell in doing so.

It is doubtful that flooding the world or letting them die a "natural" death would have had any difference in their eternal destiny.

I certainly cannot accept a God who has an uncreative and hair-raising solution to a problem that He, in his perfection, ought to easily solve in a myriad of ways.

That is assuming that your solution would be better than God's.

Put yourself in the shoes...er...sandals of one of the 'uninformed'. Would you have accepted him as your 'perfect' God?

I don't see what you mean. If I was one of the people during the pre-flood days, I don't see how my perception of him being a "perfect" God would have made any difference.

Maybe he could have done the "slightly not so evil" humans a favor by plucking them from the ground and putting them on the ark.

It would've violated the people's own free will.

I doubt Noah could have travelled the ends of the earth to warn and account for every single human being as well.

Perhaps. But, most likely everyone knew about what Noah was doing. Prior to the flood, there was most likely only one continent. So, news did not have to traverse multiple continents like today.

Whether God was justified in doing what He did or not, a question I would like to ask about what God did is -- is this perfection?

Perfection? According to what?

[dangerdan]

Oh man, I just made this big rebuttal but then my computer stuffed up, woe is me.

Ok, I refuted those three points in my post that followed your post. But anyway, let this be one of my main arguments that gods actions are the opposite to moral. Let us take this definition of morality.

Love Joy Peace Patience Kindness Goodness Faith Gentleness and Self control.

God was showing non of the above qualities.

[fonso]

It is doubtful that flooding the world or letting them die a "natural" death would have had any difference in their eternal destiny.

Yes, according to Christians who choose to interpret the Bible as such. Does this really make the flood ethical? "They're not saved anyway so there's no loss for them in killing them off?". Perhaps we should make a poll on this. Still, even if a majority believes in something, this would not constitute what is true and correct. Do you, Otseng, adhere to or agree with this thought? (about not being saved anyway)

That is assuming that your solution would be better than God's.

Sure. Why didn't God just make an island rise from the depths of the sea, fill it with an abundance of food, then send his angels to handpick the people who would be saved and place them on the flood-proof island? No need for an ark. The Bible is full of such fantastic stories anyway.

I don't see what you mean. If I was one of the people during the pre-flood days, I don't see how my perception of him being a "perfect" God would have made any difference.

Sorry for the obvious lack of development...had to rush to work. Imagine, that you, Otseng, are one of those who were killed during the flood. Now standing before the fiery depths of hell, God speaks to you one last time and tells you that He is the almighty One who created the flood to punish the wicked. You are considered as such, and so you were killed and must go to hell. Would you accept the verdict without question, or would you consider yourself victimized? Regardless of what you chose, would your perception in the existence of an all-loving, all-forgiving God (I assume that people then believed in God in spite of how wicked they were alleged to be) be affected in anyway? "If he is all-loving, why did he kill me. If he is all-forgiving, why am I burning in hell for all eternity?"

It would've violated the people's own free will.

How so? They'd only be picked if they were worthy of being saved from his wrath. He would only be saving them from Himself, not from their own choice (for many, theirs is not the choice to live or die). Take the case of innocent children.

Perhaps. But, most likely everyone knew about what Noah was doing. Prior to the flood, there was most likely only one continent. So, news did not have to traverse multiple continents like today.

Possible, albeit my opinion is that the story simply is a poorly written one with holes in it, not to say that there is no evidence of the flood, however.

Perfection? According to what?

A personal question. According to your highest standards of what God ought to be. I understand that some consider this exercise moot, or others would answer to the tune of "it should not be in our interest to understand the nature of God", but this would totally defeat the purpose of debate. I believe that in developing my relationship with God, I should strive to know the mind of God. Does the story of the flood make Him a God you would look up to and bind your faith to, or are you indifferent (or agreable) to what He did in the story? I hope that no one takes this against me as this is a personal opinion, but I would actually look down on such a deity. I would think that if such a deity did exist, He himself would be burning in hell for what he did, and only rightly so.

[dangerdan]

How so? They'd only be picked if they were worthy of being saved from his wrath. He would only be saving them from Himself, not from their own choice (for many, theirs is not the choice to live or die). Take the case of innocent children.

Exactly. He is only saving them from himself. And let us not forget that, according the Adam and Eve story, God placed the curse on them (or stepped back and let the curse go, either way) that made them sin in the first place! Should God not be judging himself?

I hope that no one takes this against me as this is a personal opinion, but I would actually look down on such a deity. I would think that if such a deity did exist, He himself would be burning in hell for what he did, and only rightly so.

Yes. Call me crazy, but if we assume that God did carry out the acts of The Flood, I personally could not applaud these actions of mass murder, even if we do take the simple assumption that “they were all evil”.

Is it not possible that the story of The Flood is simply folk law?[/quote]

[otseng]

Yes, according to Christians who choose to interpret the Bible as such. Does this really make the flood ethical? "They're not saved anyway so there's no loss for them in killing them off?". Perhaps we should make a poll on this. Still, even if a majority believes in something, this would not constitute what is true and correct. Do you, Otseng, adhere to or agree with this thought? (about not being saved anyway)

My point is that they were offered salvation prior to the flood. If they rejected salvation prior to the flood, why would they accept it if the flood didn't happen at all?

That is assuming that your solution would be better than God's.

Sure. Why didn't God just make an island rise from the depths of the sea, fill it with an abundance of food, then send his angels to handpick the people who would be saved and place them on the flood-proof island? No need for an ark.

Why is this a better solution?

Imagine, that you, Otseng, are one of those who were killed during the flood. Now standing before the fiery depths of hell, God speaks to you one last time and tells you that He is the almighty One who created the flood to punish the wicked. You are considered as such, and so you were killed and must go to hell. Would you accept the verdict without question, or would you consider yourself victimized?

I don't think there would be anybody to appeal to, so there's not much use in questioning it.

Would I consider myself victimized? If I was completely innocent, I would.

"If he is all-loving, why did he kill me. If he is all-forgiving, why am I burning in hell for all eternity?"

This is addressed in some posts, but I don't think a thread has been specifically created to discuss this. Feel free to start a thread on this issue.

They'd only be picked if they were worthy of being saved from his wrath.

If they were worthy of being saved, they would've chosen to get on the ark before the flood hit the world.

Take the case of innocent children.

Innocent children is another matter.

According to your highest standards of what God ought to be.

But does your standard of what God ought to be define what is the truth? That is, could not God exist independently of what you think God should be like?