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.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 50 by ttruscott]

Expect a donation for politeness.

Thank you. I am new to this forum, but not to the discussion of theism. However, being new, I am unaware of what a donation is exactly used for. I briefly skimmed the word "token" yesterday, but due to my lack of interest in a substitute for monetary Internet income I guess I shall remain ignorant on the matter...unless you have the time to indulge my laziness in further researching it and explain what this donation and tokens exactly do. But never the less, the compliment was payment enough.

So I obviously do not accept that we have free will here on earth. That is not the full extent of my theology by along shot but a mere start.

I'm interested in further exploring what your theology is on this matter. And I assure you it's not to poke fun or holes at your belief, but to better understand what others think of free will.

As I just said. I left this in to address the phrase "(According to your book)" as curious since I do not have a book of theology. I am the author of a study of Canadian Law and Self Defence that was unique for 20 some years in Canada but has since been updated and surpassed by others, sigh...but no book on theology. Will you please explain what you mean By this?

The "your book" is, I guess, my passive aggressive way to say "the bible" to believers. I apologize for saying it that way. And on the second note, are you speaking of Yamneko? If I'm off, what exactly did you author by way of Canadian self defense?

I will not accept people fooling with other's names pretending carelessness to get in a dig.

Pleasure to meet you Ted. I wasn't trying to get a dig, but instead trying to predict what your name actually was. You see ttruscott has the name Scott in it, it has Rusco if you remove the double t's as some usernames use this methods (ie xxJohnxx ). Not being used to the surname Truscott I wasn't able to recognize the first T was the acronym of a first name. So please, pardon the error.

[ttruscott]

...

Isaiah 45:7
, " ; "", " -".
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

evil: - Strong's H7451 - ra -
Pronunciation: rah
adj
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions

evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

So, though it can refer to doing ethical moral evil it also can be used to refer to distress, misery, injury, calamitious evil, and adversity so why would you think you can convince a believer that GOD, the source of all good with no wickedness in HIM, creates moral evil based upon this verse?

Every single definition you've listed clearly applies to a being that would indiscriminately kill every man, woman, and child of every species on Earth including man.

The word displeasing clearly applies to a being that would indiscriminately kill every man, woman, and child of every species on Earth including man??? Ummm...

The words "righteous judge" refers to "to a being that would bring the sentence of death upon every deserving man, woman, and child of every species on Earth including man."

That he is "the source of all good with no wickedness in HIM," appears to be preposterous given his actions. You can't 'define' this God as good and without wickedness. His actions speak much louder than any words, yours or 'his.'

But Danmark, you have already confessed somewhere recently that you do not accept any power to apportion righteous suffering, pain or death as legitimate. I know you are not irrational yet it worries me when a rational person seems to leave rationality behind for a cause. Does no one really never have any authority to cause pain, suffering or death righteously? My words contending HE is a righteous judge conforms perfectly to HIS avowed actions preceding and during the flood. Perfectly. You can only fault the story if you contend HE is not who HE claims to be or is lying about HIS motives and is just being a monster, pulling the wings off a whole world.

The question of whether you can "convince a believer" in the goodness of this God is irrelevant. That 'true believers' can't be convinced of anything contrary to their beliefs, no matter how strong the facts, is the very problem. Nothing can convince them.

The question of whether you can "convince a non-believer" in the goodness of this God is irrelevant. That 'non-believers' can't be convinced of anything contrary to their beliefs, no matter how strong the facts, is the very problem. Nothing can convince them. Amen.

Well one thing might convince them but that might be preaching so, 'nothing for now.'

When the fact this 'God' decides to destroy every living thing, is not sufficient to convince people he is evil, nothing will. When his command that Abraham kill his son to please God does not convince people this God is evil, what would?

HIS being a righteous judge takes care of HIS judgment on a evil and violent population. As for HIS ordering Abraham to to kill his son, who learned what from this situation? Did God learn anything new? I doubt it...HE is GOD after all. Did Abraham? Yes, he learned that his faith was strong enough to carry out the most bizarre requests by HIS chosen GOD. Who suffered? Isaac for sure until he realized he was a part of a momentous occasion. Abraham? Nothing lasting that's for sure. I'm not sure what you are going on about...?

When this God's command that infants to be dashed against the rocks so one tribe can take the land of another does not convince one 'he' is evil, what would be convincing?

When this GOD stands firm in HIS resolve to judge the evil of ancient criminals recently born into the human race, how is HE proven to be evil? Death of babies means nothing if the spirit inhabiting the baby is an ancient demon, eh? Wouldn't it be ironic if the movies Rosemary's Baby and Damion had it right??? Got to be a first for everything, I've heard.

I submit that NOTHING, no evidence, no fact, nothing at all can convince the 'true believer' of anything at all, given the fact this record of evil is insufficient to do the job.

I submit that NOTHING, no evidence, no fact, nothing at all can convince the 'non-believer' of anything at all, given the fact this record of justice and the record of love in the NT is insufficient to do the job. Sigh...Well maybe one thing.

[liamconnor]

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.

Well, many scholars believe (based on literary evidence) that this was a revision of pagan myths, adapted for the purpose of teaching the Hebrews that Yahweh was truly God. If you want, I can show some of the parallels and differences between this and other ancient myths. The differences are historically perplexing (why did a pagan people suddenly come to believe that there was one God, whom they must worship and only worship? What provoked them to take popular mythologies and revise them to reflect their own, unprecedented, religious convictions?)

But let's forget that since I doubt you want that.

Let me ask this. If upon a single reading you can, supposedly, disarm the entire first 10 chapters of Genesis, why didn't it seem equally preposterous to the author? Do you really believe that everyone in the ancient world was STUPID, STUPID, STUPID?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 47 by ttruscott]

Notice how you bring out the meaning of the hebrew word for evil that they use in that scripture, and although It means "evil", and says repeatedly "Injury" "Misery" "Calamity" you say these words do not express evil acts or evil results? Because you have 72 scriptures that say your God is great, THAT...that is the reason you believe he's good? What about his actions?

I'm sorry not to be so dumb as to believe that the GOD who inspired the Bible slipped up and messed up and confessed HIS sins in this verse. I have dozens of verses saying He is not evil and won't do evil and by them I adjudicate HIS actions...you have one word of one verse and by that you feel justified in repudiating HIS holiness, HIS loving kindness and HIS righteousness...good luck with that.

Back to the word Evil. Do you honestly believe that anyone who did not know your God's commands should be drowned as punishment? And that this is something a good person does to his children that he did not lead in the right direction until the year 30 CE? You are a believer. I am a believer that you are not evil. Would you kill billions of humans if you dropped the ball on letting them know how they are to be and act as a race/species? The word evil is evil. And no, even Calamity which is the apologetic way out of that scripture, makes it any less to the point. Your God creates good...and he creates evil...The scripture and the chapter is about subduing nations. Killing the first born of every slave who did him no wrong in Egypt...every child...every Childless mother crying...wailing....why? What did they do, besides be placed where Your God had put them upon birth and gave them no out, no freedom...and yet they must suffer as well? What did the first born of the slaves do to deserve all of that pain and misery, boils and famine and death? For what? For good? Calamity is just as evil as evil,

This preaching rant ignored.

Rusco...ttruscott, Scott...

Rusco,

I thought better of you, I warned you, on ignore.

[Bust Nak]

IF you wanted to prove your point (whatever it might be) with the destruction of every sinner in the world at the same time, how better more efficiently would you do it?

Given God like powers of the magnitude that can generate a global flood? Perfectly efficiently. Poof, just like that, sinners gone, no suffering, no collateral damage.

How do you keep Noah et al safe if you blast the whole earth with fire from heaven and volcanoes etc? Shaking the whole earth by earthquakes and comet strikes also do not solve the difficulty of saving the Ark.

Why would God even need an Ark to keep Noah safe from a flood anyway? Why can't God make every being he wanted to save, immune to drowning? We are talking about a global supernatural event aren't we?

Water is more efficient than an all consuming fire if you want to save someone from your destruction but at the end when total destruction is the goal, HE will use fire, eh?

What's wrong is miracling them away as if there were never there in the first place? Cataclysmic disaster, be it fire, water or earth, is just so unrefined.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 54 by ttruscott]

Would someone be so kind as to Explain to Ted (ttruscott) that I had apologized before he placed me on ignore, however, he never got to read it. I'm new and unable to Private message yet so I am unable to do so myself.

I wrote this post above, if you could simply repost it, or explain, it would be very nice of you.

Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:07 pm Reply with quote Reply
[Replying to post 50 by ttruscott]

ttruscott wrote:
Expect a donation for politeness.


Thank you. I am new to this forum, but not to the discussion of theism. However, being new, I am unaware of what a donation is exactly used for. I briefly skimmed the word "token" yesterday, but due to my lack of interest in a substitute for monetary Internet income I guess I shall remain ignorant on the matter...unless you have the time to indulge my laziness in further researching it and explain what this donation and tokens exactly do. But never the less, the compliment was payment enough.

ttruscott wrote:
So I obviously do not accept that we have free will here on earth. That is not the full extent of my theology by along shot but a mere start.


I'm interested in further exploring what your theology is on this matter. And I assure you it's not to poke fun or holes at your belief, but to better understand what others think of free will.

ttruscott wrote:
As I just said. I left this in to address the phrase "(According to your book)" as curious since I do not have a book of theology. I am the author of a study of Canadian Law and Self Defence that was unique for 20 some years in Canada but has since been updated and surpassed by others, sigh...but no book on theology. Will you please explain what you mean By this?


The "your book" is, I guess, my passive aggressive way to say "the bible" to believers. I apologize for saying it that way. And on the second note, are you speaking of Yamneko? If I'm off, what exactly did you author by way of Canadian self defense?

ttruscott wrote:
I will not accept people fooling with other's names pretending carelessness to get in a dig.


Pleasure to meet you Ted. I wasn't trying to get a dig, but instead trying to predict what your name actually was. You see ttruscott has the name Scott in it, it has Rusco if you remove the double t's as some usernames use this methods (ie xxJohnxx ). Not being used to the surname Truscott I wasn't able to recognize the first T was the acronym of a first name. So please, pardon the error.

[Zzyzx]

.

I thought better of you, I warned you, on ignore.

Moderator Warning

Kindly STOP addressing people personally and address ISSUES instead.

Ignore posts if you wish -- WITHOUT making an announcement (which contributes nothing to debate)



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ttruscott]

Sigh...

...

And on the second note, are you speaking of Yamneko? If I'm off, what exactly did you author by way of Canadian self defense?

Yama Neko (Mountain Cat) is the name of my martial arts school. I use the name for lots of things. Search for Canadian Law and Self Defence and you will find my book.

I will not accept people fooling with other's names pretending carelessness to get in a dig.

Not being used to the surname Truscott I wasn't able to recognize the first T was the acronym of a first name. So please, pardon the error.

As I thought...

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 4 by Dropship]

Did you ever consider that many of these animals were babies , or infants? There is also great evidence of a great flood, there is enough geological evidence to back this up.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 4 by Dropship]

Did you ever consider that many of these animals were babies , or infants? There is also great evidence of a great flood, there is enough geological evidence to back this up.

And that evidence is . . . what?

BTW, the point of this thread is not to debunk the obviously absurd notion of a world wide flood and the silly myth of Noah and the Ark. The point of this thread is to accept it despite its absurdity and then to ask, what event in the course of human history is more evil.
I repeat my challenge, which no one has even tried to answer:
Since the story of the flood demonstrates God indiscriminately killing every man, woman, and child of every species on Earth including man, how can this not be the greatest evil?
WHO, aside from your favorite god, could commit these acts and not be considered the most evil actor in the history of the world?