ENDS MEANS part ONE

[liamconnor]

Much criticism against the biblical god is targeted towards his behavior. Let's focus on the O.T.: he floods the world because of their immorality; he sanctions death by stoning for cheaters; he demands a man who, despite explicit commands gathers wood, to be killed.

These are strange ethics for 21st c. Democratics.

Now, all ethics can be boiled down to Ends and Means, whether we agree with either the end or the means: killing a man is typically frowned upon; but should a man find his wife being abused by a stranger in his own house, the End (saving his wife) is justified by a means (attacking the assailant to whatever necessary extent, including death) is typically justified. That is, ethical laws are conditionally evaluated.

The principle here for ethical criticism means we must know the end as well as the means to judge an action as ethically sound.

Now, question for debate:

What is the God of the O.T.'s MEAN? What is it that he wants to accomplish? If this figure is an invention, what does this invention intend? Does this figure simply want to annihilate the entire world? Does it simply want the world to function as it always has?

What is the END of this figure?

Please provide scripture, since that is the only source.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why would a world created by a good god become so corrupt? Why has it not again become corrupt?

#QUESTION: If everything God does is perfect how could humans that he created, become so corrupt?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p873903


This question is essentially: Why has God tolerated evil for so LONG? The answer below uses the rebellion in Eden as the starting point but all the principles therein apply to the post flood world as well.

Why has God tolerated evil for so LONG?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 75#p845975

RELATED POSTS

Adamic Rebellion
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 911#389911

Edenic Responsibility [Q&A]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 875#840875

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

The purpose of the flood was:

> To save the last living family of righteous men (Noah & his family) from a corrupt world.

> To wipe out the freak descendants of an ungodly union between materialized fallen angels and human women (Nephlim)

> To force said fallen angels do dematerialize and return to the spirit realm

> To wipe out a world of wicked people and slow down the degredation of humanity long enough for the Messiah to arrive

> To provide a pattern of what happens to the ungodly, the violent and the sexually perverted as well as a demonstration of how God can save the righteous.




JW

It's strange. Why would any and/or all those goals require a worldwide flood?

If I want to investigate whether someone is quote unquote evil, I tend to use how destructive their methods are as a quick and dirty way to do so. So if someone says he let off a nuke in his house so as to kill off a rat infestation (with his family and pets being the collateral damage), I know that that person is insane.

To save the last living family of righteous men (Noah & his family) from a corrupt world.

This can be done in so many different ways that don't require a global flood.

To wipe out the freak descendants of an ungodly union between materialized fallen angels and human women (Nephlim)

Perhaps God could have made the sons of God not capable of reproduction with humans? (This happens in the background lore of a fantasy novel series by David Eddings: a group of people reject the Father of the Gods, UL, so his first prophet Gorim curses them to not be able to have children).

To force said fallen angels do dematerialize and return to the spirit realm

Couldn't God just do this with a mere thought, without having to resort to a flood? Doesn't he call Satan/Lucifer himself up to heaven in the Book of Job, to have a chat?

To wipe out a world of wicked people and slow down the degredation of humanity long enough for the Messiah to arrive

What did their wickedness consist of? Exodus is rather sparse on the details. Also again, does not need to have a flood happen.

To provide a pattern of what happens to the ungodly, the violent and the sexually perverted as well as a demonstration of how God can save the righteous.

Except a global flood has quote unquote happened only the once.
One occurrence does not a pattern make.

I could certainly be described as 'ungodly', and yet...no flood in my life.

Also, a suggestion. If you're going to link an image that is a quote from scripture...don't have images of random men obscuring the text. Sure I can go elsewhere to find the text...but then this means your posting of the image is now meaningless.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by McCulloch]

That's in the Bible? Why not send messiah right after the flood and avoid lots and lots of sinning?

Why not have Jesus be the direct son of Adam and Eve? That way, this so called perfect human do his human sacrifice (could've sworn God was against that? ), pay the ransom, and thus all the sin that would have happened can be avoided.

Woops.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

Logically an omnipotent God could use any method he likes to achieve said means, evidently he chose this one.

With hindsight, it seems clear to me that the magnitude and drama of the flood made an idelible impression on mankind, to the extent that we are still discussing it, thousands of years later on internet webites; Jesus himself made reference to the days of Noah, as did other prophets (see illustration) ... one does not even have to be a believer, one can be fore example a Hollywood producer, and still recognize it as a truly great story not easily forgotten!

For believers, the testimony the story of the flood it conveys thus stand the test of time along with the with the scope and magintude of the events. In any case, yes, God could have gone another way, he didn't. Would alternatives have been "better", that is a matter of personal opinion, personally I think not.



JW



RELATED POSTS

WHY : What was the purpose of the flood?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p874813

Why would God choose FLOODING the earth as a method of execution ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p874964

Why did God not employ the slow extermination of the wicked through sterilization?
viewtopic.php?p=1061072#p1061072

Why did God not instantly vapourize the wicked one by one instead of flood the planet?
viewtopic.php?p=1061288#p1061288

Does the global flood prove God a "baby killer"?
viewtopic.php?p=979190#p979190

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

NOAH, KILLING and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

Logically an omnipotent God could use any method he likes to achieve said means, evidently he chose this one.

With hindsight, it seems clear to me that the magnitude and drama of the flood made an idelible impression on mankind, to the extent that we are still discussing it, thousands of years later on internet webites; Jesus himself made reference to the days of Noah, as did other prophets (see illustration) ... one does not even have to be a believer, one can be fore example a Hollywood producer, and still recognize it as a truly great story not easily forgotten!

For believers, the testimony the story of the flood it conveys thus stand the test of time along with the with the scope and magintude of the events. In any case, yes, God could have gone another way, he didn't. Would alternatives have been "better", that is a matter of personal opinion, personally I think not.



JW

In one of my earlier comments, I mentioned I use destructiveness and collateral damage as a barometer for how evil (for lack of a better term) a person is.
Do you not use this same barometer? Are you saying that since the story made for good story telling, that people thousands of years later are still talking about it, therefore the level of destruction and the amount of collateral damage doesn't really matter?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]

Yup, they still discuss the flood, Theseus, Heracles, the Three Bears and many other things, and will to eternity.

The key difference is, most people don't believe that bears build and lived in a cabin in the woods, and made porridge though THIS IS much more likely, than animals going into a magical boat two by two.

It is all about rational discernment - what is it ToN says?

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense