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]

...


If God cannot repent, but the Son of Man can repent... (Numbers 23:19) ...and Jesus is the Son of Man... (Mark 14:62) ...and Jesus is a part of the trinity that makes up God... (Matthew 28:19) ...then doesn't that make God a logical impossibility? Being A, and being B, while still having the attributes of A?
...

This little bit of sophistry fails on the fact that you have not proven that the Son of Man can repent...

Don't forget that for centuries Christian scholars have accepted that cannot lie or repent is better rendered into English (that is, in better accordance with the bulk of Christian doctrine and interpretation) as need to / should lie or repent.

I wouldn't call it lying exactly, but Jesus was fond of sarcasm, which has an element of deceit in it. When he sees the doubting Nathaniel he greets him with:

Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

When the Canaanite woman begs for help, he teases her, even appears to mock her.

I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.

He knows all along he is going to help her, but first he teases and tests her with apparent cruelty, employing a form of deceit.

I do not mean to suggest Jesus was evil. I actually like this picture of him, employing humor to make a point. But I suggest these are examples of the fact Jesus was human and not a "perfect" and "omniscient" god. That is the point of claim that claiming god is perfectly omnipotent and omniscient is not logical. Everyone can see the distinction between the linguist contradiction of 'making a rock he can't lift.' The point is that a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent god is just as illogical and contradictory as the impossible rock.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 948 by ttruscott]

[row color=black][color=gainsboro] Does the Christian doctrine and interpretation of the verse [/color][color=chartreuse]"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent..."[/color][color=gainsboro] then translate, by your statement, to the following... [/color][color=chartreuse]"God is not a man, that He [b]needs to[/b] lie, Nor a son of man, that He [b]should[/b] repent..."[/color][color=gainsboro]? Because to my limited understanding of this term if God does not [u]need[/u] to lie, then it would imply he can if he so chose to, but simply has no need to. The statement to solidify the opposition would accurately be "he cannot lie". Or did you mean that Christian Doctrine interoperates the verse to say[/color][color=chartreuse] "God is not a man, that He [b]cannot[/b] lie, Nor a son of man, that He [b]cannot[/b] repent..."[/color][color=gainsboro] Because, even still, the attributes that he has shunned in each statement(lying and repenting) are implied to belong to their subject matter, both man and the son of man, respectively. If you state that someone "should not" do something, you give that someone a warning not to do said thing, but ultimately, you simultaneously give them the attributes of being able to do said thing. There would be no point in the warning otherwise. Does this point to God also having the ability to repent, just not the need to? When it comes to the son of man, you said Christian scholars accept cannot repent being replaced by Should repentSo are you asserting that should repent, a modal verb, is somehow implying the opposite of the likelihood, ability, permission, or obligation to repenting? Because, for simplicity's sake, should implies could. Or are you asserting that cannot repent replaces Should repent? Which in this case, please explain how you derived at the interpretation that you should do this thing somehow means you cannot do this thing If I have mangled your words, please forgive my ignorance. And in a simplistic sentence, please explain your point. As I have it here [/color][color=chartreuse]"...Christian scholars have accepted that cannot lie or repent is better rendered into English (that is, in better accordance with the bulk of Christian doctrine and interpretation) as need to / should lie or repent."[/color][color=gainsboro] and to both sides of my interpretation of your statement I say If God cannot lie or cannot repent and the son of man cannot repent, then Numbers 23:19 asserts that man cannot lie as well. And if God cannot lie because man can lie, then Numbers 23:19 asserts that the son of man can repent. Please explain how christian doctrine came to a different conclusion. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:51[/b] [/color]

[InHIsHands]

[Replying to Danmark]

To show that even though GOD is grieved, HE still provides a refuge and even just one (Noah) as a witness to HIM and HIS WORD...

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 952 by InHIsHands]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]What is your opinion of God's omnipotence? Is it limited? Can he create square-circles if he so chooses? (Something that logically is impossible) [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:53[/b] [/color]

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

To show that even though GOD is grieved, HE still provides a refuge and even just one (Noah) as a witness to HIM and HIS WORD...

Allowing one in a million to enter the sanctuary hardly qualifies god's plan as a 'refuge.'

Assuming the flood myth is true, then God is cruel if not evil. HE created the problem. He's the one who created birth defects and other maladies. He sends floods and windstorms, earthquakes and plagues. He does not play nice. The flood is simply the worst of his many foul deeds. He killed every 1st born innocent child in Egypt, according to the legend. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. The great genius, God, could surely have found an easier solution to the release of the Jewish slaves. He can close the mouths of lions, he can give Samson superhuman strength, he can take men up to heaven in fiery chariots, but he can't get slaves out of Egypt without killing an innocent child in every Egyptian household?

Upon scrutiny, these ancient myths look ridiculous, but if insisted upon they declare the existence of a very cruel and unimaginative god.

[mitty]

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.

The story is just too silly for words to think that most of Noah's family were drowned for being naughty, including Noah's grandfather (Gen 5:27) and Noah's widowed mother (Gen 5:31) and Noah's aunts & uncles & cousins (Gen 5:26) and Noah's brothers & sisters (Gen 5:30) and Noah's hundreds of other children apart from the triplets born when Mrs Noah was 500 years old (Gen 5:32). Afterall, according to the bible the only people who drowned were Noah's relatives - or so the story goes.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 955 by mitty]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]Please elaborate. I'm not sure I recall Noah's family being all that was there to drown in the way of humans. Unless you're meaning it in the, "father Abraham, how many sons, (how many sons) how many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you..." Kind of way. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:56[/b] [/color]

[mitty]

[Replying to post 955 by mitty]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]Please elaborate. I'm not sure I recall Noah's family being all that was there to drown in the way of humans. Unless you're meaning it in the, "father Abraham, how many sons, (how many sons) how many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you..." Kind of way. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:56[/b] [/color]

According to the Genesis myths there were only nine generations between Noah and Adam and his genetically identical "wife" (also named Adam) (Gen 5). Therefore according to the bible the only people who drowned in the local river flood of 15 cubits high (Gen 7:20) were all members of Noah's extended family. Or so the story goes.

And I'm certainly not a descendant of Abraham or Noah or Adam if they existed. And our aboriginals arrived over 40,000 years ago and long before Adam's grandfather was a boy and were totally unaffected by that local flood.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 955 by mitty]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]Please elaborate. I'm not sure I recall Noah's family being all that was there to drown in the way of humans. Unless you're meaning it in the, "father Abraham, how many sons, (how many sons) how many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you..." Kind of way. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:56[/b] [/color]

According to the Genesis myths there were only nine generations between Noah and Adam and his genetically identical "wife" (also named Adam) (Gen 5). Therefore according to the bible the only people who drowned in the local river flood of 15 cubits high (Gen 7:20) were all members of Noah's extended family. Or so the story goes.

And I'm certainly not a descendant of Abraham or Noah or Adam if they existed. And our aboriginals arrived over 40,000 years ago and long before Adam's grandfather was a boy and were totally unaffected by that local flood.

A 'local river flood' certainly makes more sense as the seed of the myth, but is there any Biblical support for the idea the flood was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates or other river system?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to Danmark]

To show that even though GOD is grieved, HE still provides a refuge and even just one (Noah) as a witness to HIM and HIS WORD...

Allowing one in a million to enter the sanctuary hardly qualifies god's plan as a 'refuge.'

Assuming the flood myth is true, then God is cruel if not evil. HE created the problem. He's the one who created birth defects and other maladies. He sends floods and windstorms, earthquakes and plagues. He does not play nice.

Your assertions are not in Christian doctrine but miss it. HE plays very nice but HIS judgment against the sin created by HIS creation is harsh and terrible. HE allowed the problem from a need to give us a free will to be able to have a true loving marriage with HIS creation but HE did not create evil at all.

The flood is simply the worst of his many foul deeds. He killed every 1st born innocent child in Egypt, according to the legend. He hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Death comes to everyone - why judge GOD because these deaths were of first borns only? Would whole families have been better?

All HE had to do to harden Pharaoh's heart was to remove his hesitation to do what he wanted. GOD did not turn loving Pharaoh against his bosom buddy Moses and his favourite slaves - nope, HE took the restraints of fear of HIS Name from him to allow him to do just what he wanted, that is, to murder them all. And he tried.

The great genius, God, could surely have found an easier solution to the release of the Jewish slaves. He can close the mouths of lions, he can give Samson superhuman strength, he can take men up to heaven in fiery chariots, but he can't get slaves out of Egypt without killing an innocent child in every Egyptian household?

As I have asked a time or two, if you accept the Bible story and make claims about it then you must support your claims from the bible - I specifically do not accept that the Bible teaches that "children are innocent" even though whole Churches have been forced to talk publicly as if this is true (even if not stated in doctrine) or lose their congregations. Ain't PC pressure fun?

imCo
Only the guilty suffer or die.
Suffering and death is a proof (in the Christian system) of one's evil.
No innocent suffers or dies.
All suffering or death is the result of a judgment (no rehab value) or a punishment with rehab intent, for sin.