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]

We must discern what He means here by the word kill

Really? We have to 'discern' what he means by 'kill?' How about drowning every living thing until it is dead? How's that for 'killing.'

You could have saved yourself about 500 words. Essentially God is saying he gets to kill and you don't. Simple. Issue solved.

But think of the kittens.

[bluethread]

Either we have to assume everyone, including infants and children were somehow 'evil', or Yahweh appears unreasonably cruel. What if he just is? There's certainly plenty MORE evidence for that, from a human point of view.

This is a much better way of putting it, as you say, from a human point of view. It doesn't bother me that Humanist philosophy finds Adonai cruel. However, this whole "evil" thing is so mired in the modern English usage of that term, it becomes practically worthless when referring to anything in the Scriptures.

I can see it being 'worthless' from a theistic point of view, but that is not the sole relevant point of view. I don't have belief in your god, but granting his existence, is it really 'worthless' to have my very human reaction to your god's ruthless, exacting and savage (sometimes) behavior? I think nontheists have relevant concerns, even when they have no belief, because of having to share the planet with believers of all sorts of religions.

No, it is worthless from a literary point of view. I did not say that your reaction was worthless. I said the term was worthless, because it does not comport with the literary context of the text. The accounts referred to are derived from ancient Hebrew and are placed in the setting of people living in the ancient near east. When the translators of 17th century England translated them they settled on the term they considered to be closest to the idea being expressed. That term was what we pronounce as evil, which basically referred to a transgression. This was indeed close, but lacked, in itself, the comparative connotation that one sees in it's usage in HaTorah. The influence of RCC doctrine and modern hyperbole, then added a grotesque connotation. Not that the ways of the nations were not grotesque in the ancient near east, but the primary concept of contrast has been overshadowed with western obsession with the grotesque.

I'm of the belief that the human point of view is the only available point of view, unless we include other sentient animals. "Humanist" is actually a great way to characterize my personal beliefs, or most of them on this subject.

That is fine, but we humans have an ability to speculate regarding other perspectives. This allows us to envision a literary context with witch we are not entirely familiar. So, even if one does not believe in the literary context, one can suspend disbelief enough to have some understanding of that context. The real problem come when we impose our personal context over the literary context and change the literary intent.

This is what humanism does. It takes all things and interprets them in a way that is most favorable to humanity, rejecting those cases where human interests may not have primacy. The more urban the culture the more profound this bias becomes.

In most cultures that developed a society, killing each other aside from self defense has been characterized as immoral, and the degree of immorality is such that one of our most vehement descriptors, 'evil', just FITS for describing a being that drowns the world, commands genocide, and all that stuff you're used to hearing from us.

This is precisely what I am referring to. Humanism personifies the grotesque in order to create an adversary shields humanity from the fact that, baring some other factor, humanity is no better than any other species. Modern societies have named this personification "evil" and attach to it those that they oppose. So, the term "evil" only "FITS" because it is redefined to "FIT". This redefinition makes it valuable for identifying that of which a given society disapproves, but that makes the term useful only to those who know and approve of that society. It is therefore useless in coming to an understanding of another society.

This may be irrelevant in many ways to theists, but it is very alarming to nonbelievers. I think that alone gives the issue importance. I'm thinking your faith is not evangelical in any way, so this doesn't apply to you, but for the evangelicals among us, it's on them to provide some kind of explanation to those who ask or are seeking.

AS many atheists have pointed out atheism, and by association theism, is only about whether there is or is not a deity or deities. It says nothing about the nature of any such deity or deities. There are many theists are also humanists and define "evil" in the same manner. Yes, such individuals might very well have inconsistencies to explain. Regarding may view of evangelism, I am not an Evangelical, but I do speak of Adonai's ways to just about anybody.

The 'evil' of the OT God is something I'd never heard characterized until recently, but it is quite 'widespread' as a hard question asked of believers.

Yes, the modern evangelical movement, that has adopted the modern egalitarian humanist viewpoint, has left itself with the awkward task of redefining Adonai to "FIT" that mold. However, that brings us back to the Scriptural concept of evil(ra'). One is not to redefine Adonai to "FIT" the ways of the nations.

It should be an honest admission that the biblical Yahweh does not act 'human' and from our human perspective, his behavior illustrates a jealous and angry god (his own words, I believe) who does what he wants to do for his own reasons. It is disingenuous to gloss over Yahweh's behavior, or explain it away like William Lane Craig does (badly), or try and get anyone above the age of 12 to buy that 'God's reasons are mysterious, it just looks bad to us because of our limited understanding'. Who would want to devote themselves to such a god?

Of course Adoani does not act human, He is not human, except for when He takes on the nature of a human. Then, as an example to humans, He did act as Adonai requires His people to act. That said, I have no idea of this William Lane Craig, n or do I intend on defending his views.

Or is the question "who would dare NOT worship such a god"?

That is a good question. However, I do not worship Adonai out of that kind of fear.

I remember having serious fears that God would and could refuse to fulfill his promises, for his own mysterious reasons that I could not possibly understand. His recorded 'behavior' in the Bible is not comforting at all.

I am sorry that was your experience.

So (after all that jabber) I disagree about the 'worthless' part because in my world, which is relevant, 'evil' behavior is real and problematic, whether or not we agree on who gets to decide the definition of evil as it applies to God.

As I said before, my only point is that the humanist way of defining evil is worthless in understanding what is written in the Scriptures. Regarding your discomfort with the things that are recorded in the Scriptures, I do not consider that worthless, I am not sure what you would expect me to do about it other than to be honest and consistent in how I interpret those Scriptures.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]
As you can see, what is or isn't evil is debatable. Best to rephrase the question to use objective terms: The Flood Myth - The less than perfectly efficient. I would like to see Christians argue how flooding the Earth is the most efficient way of dispensing justice to sinners.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]
As you can see, what is or isn't evil is debatable. Best to rephrase the question to use objective terms: The Flood Myth - The less than perfectly efficient. I would like to see Christians argue how flooding the Earth is the most efficient way of dispensing justice to sinners.

I disagree completely. In fact, that is the very point of this debate; that killing everyone, babies, the unborn fetuses, three year old children, EVERYone is evil. If the act of killing every living creature on the Earth by a sentient being is not evil, what is?

I'll issue the challenge again: If anyone but this mythical God killed everyone, who would contend the act was not evil? The idea that it was not evil, but just "less than perfectly efficient" is the moral equivalent of allowing that "The moon is made of green cheese" is not absurd. To allow that such a moon is merely "unlikely" is ridiculous.

So again, tell me what example of intentional mass killing by a sentient being is not evil? Here's a list of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Which ones were merely inefficient and not evil?

[Elijah John]

I think collective punishment is usually evil. And the Bible account of the flood does God an injustice, to attribute such actions to Him.

This is an exteme example of second guessing God's motives for natural disasters...

Rabbi Harold Kushner has a somewhat different understanding of why God allows bad things to happen to good people.

He basically says that God grieves with us when bad things happen, but he is, in effect, bound by His own laws. In this case the laws of physics. A certain "random factor" built into the universe.

But without those same laws of physics, chaos would prevail. So the laws of physics are usually for the good of all.

The question then becomes, "why does good and order usually prevail in nature", ( usually no major floods) rather than "why this flood"?

Kushner would probably say, (and I agree) that it is by God's design.

But Kushner would NOT say the flood was God's punishment for sin. (and of couse, he understands the Bible account to be myth)

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Danmark]

A made up God idea would conduct actions that would reflect on the illogical ideals of who made that God up to begin with.

This is certainly the case with the God of the Bible........especially in the old testament.....

In Kings I believe there is a story how God is angered by those Levites that do not obey his procedure in managing the ark of the covenant. As a result, during a worship gathering he causes the Earth to open up and selectively swallow those within that levite tribe that did not obey him..........Just like that he opens up the earth like a pocket book and the guilty disappear.

Yet this same God requires situations to have armies kill off the guilty or a worldwide floor to kill all the guilty and everything else too.

Why???

Why wouldn't this all powerful God of the universe just selectively open up the earth and take away whoever he wanted to and not bother with forcing people to kill other people .....or flooding out the Earth's sewage system........or have people smash babies against rocks.......

Sounds more like people made all this up along with their made up God and forget what other made up stories were told and as a result huge consistencies abound in how this holy God wants to eliminate the human fleas off on his coat of self righteousness......

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 35 by Elijah John]

And that is the point. This is a myth to show the power of God and his hatred of wickedness, but it never happened. It's a story. But for those that take this passage literally there is no choice but to conclude that god was the most evil monster the Earth has ever known.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.

Certainly, I will concede that the evil may only be evil from the point of view of humanity. But that is also my point. The human viewpoint is all we have. But such is the power of religion that it can assert, "No! There is another, a better perspective. We should see things thru the eyes of God." And I also concede, that from this mythical God's perspective, there is no right or wrong; there is no evil, except what he declares. This is the ethics of the Superman where might makes right. My assertion is that there is a higher law, a natural law; a law that is above any anthropomorphic conception of a God who would destroy the Earth in a petulant fit.

That higher law calls for kindness and empathy, fairness and reciprocity, and avoiding the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering. We even see this higher law at work in the animal kingdom, at least in the more intelligent mammals. We see it at work in the ever increasing empathy we have toward animals.

Walter J. Palmer, the killer of Cecil the Lion, has now been ostracized by much of society. He's being treated like a Nazi war criminal cowering in Paraguay for doing something that used to be thought heroic in some circles. Social media has published too many cute videos of apparent interspecies affection for people to dismiss animals as mindless brutes anymore. Man has evolved far beyond the primitive, vengeful destroyer God of Genesis.
___________________
Genesis 6:5-7

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 32 by bluethread]

To Bluethread:

This quote from Danmark restates my position about 'perspective' in regard to the issue of evil.

Certainly, I will concede that the evil may only be evil from the point of view of humanity. But that is also my point. The human viewpoint is all we have. But such is the power of religion that it can assert, "No! There is another, a better perspective. We should see things thru the eyes of God." And I also concede, that from this mythical God's perspective, there is no right or wrong; there is no evil, except what he declares. This is the ethics of the Superman where might makes right. My assertion is that there is a higher law, a natural law; a law that is above any anthropomorphic conception of a God who would destroy the Earth in a petulant fit.

As a person who remains unconvinced about the reality of any gods, I'm aware of idealisms humans have, over time, attributed to their gods. They differ in degree from mundane human perception, as Danmark says below.

That higher law calls for kindness and empathy, fairness and reciprocity, and avoiding the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering. We even see this higher law at work in the animal kingdom, at least in the more intelligent mammals. We see it at work in the ever increasing empathy we have toward animals.

Without a belief in a god, I don't see any reason to not take the OT God's behavior at face value, and am helpless but to interpret it through human eyes. My faith or belief isn't adversely impacted by behavior I can't explain as 'godly' or consistent with Jesus' version of God in the NT. I do 'get' how I can reserve a perceptual space for such a god, and attempt an objective view. But to what purpose?

It's more appropriate for me to emulate ideal human goals, like kindness and empathy and compassionate action. As far as I can tell after all these years is that this is all we have, and it is PLENTY, we'll probably never get there knowing us, but progress is worthwhile. I can't see how these human ideals are fostered much by gaining additional perspective on a god that probably doesn't exist anyway.

Where do I think these so-called 'human ideals' come from? Not from thin air, or from a higher being (that I know of). I can't see how it matters where they come from except out of curiosity. They've withstood the test of time in clear, empirical ways unlike the moral behavior of Yahweh, which even modern believers no longer (at least openly) defend. The empiricity (sp?) of how much better our lives are when individuals and societies emulate our best capacities for love and reciprocity is not something I have to interpret or arrange a special 'space' to understand.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 35 by Elijah John]

And that is the point. This is a myth to show the power of God and his hatred of wickedness, but it never happened. It's a story. But for those that take this passage literally there is no choice but to conclude that god was the most evil monster the Earth has ever known.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.

Certainly, I will concede that the evil may only be evil from the point of view of humanity. But that is also my point. The human viewpoint is all we have. But such is the power of religion that it can assert, "No! There is another, a better perspective. We should see things thru the eyes of God." And I also concede, that from this mythical God's perspective, there is no right or wrong; there is no evil, except what he declares. This is the ethics of the Superman where might makes right. My assertion is that there is a higher law, a natural law; a law that is above any anthropomorphic conception of a God who would destroy the Earth in a petulant fit.

That higher law calls for kindness and empathy, fairness and reciprocity, and avoiding the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering. We even see this higher law at work in the animal kingdom, at least in the more intelligent mammals. We see it at work in the ever increasing empathy we have toward animals.

Walter J. Palmer, the killer of Cecil the Lion, has now been ostracized by much of society. He's being treated like a Nazi war criminal cowering in Paraguay for doing something that used to be thought heroic in some circles. Social media has published too many cute videos of apparent interspecies affection for people to dismiss animals as mindless brutes anymore. Man has evolved far beyond the primitive, vengeful destroyer God of Genesis.
___________________
Genesis 6:5-7

I'm guessing that from your non-theistic pov, that you take the Bible God at face value and reject Him as being both evil and non-existent?

Whereas from my Deistic/Theist pov, the living God transends the Bible and is far better than the Bible sometimes paints Him to be.

I do believe the Bible does reflect some benevolent aspects of His Being, as your statement about "higher good" is also reflected by the prophets, and attibuted to God...

But the flood story certainly is not an example of "higher good"...

To me, it is hard to believe that the same book which teaches the Golden Rule, also contains the horrendous flood story.

All the more reason to "cherry pick" the Bible,...we all do it to some degree or another, even those who profess to take the Bible as an inerrant whole.

[Danmark]

I'm guessing that from your non-theistic pov, that you take the Bible God at face value and reject Him as being both evil and non-existent?

Whereas from my Deistic/Theist pov, the living God transends the Bible and is far better than the Bible sometimes paints Him to be.

I do believe the Bible does reflect some benevolent aspects of His Being, as your statement about "higher good" is also reflected by the prophets, and attibuted to God...

But the flood story certainly is not an example of "higher good"...

To me, it is hard to believe that the same book which teaches the Golden Rule, also contains the horrendous flood story.

All the more reason to "cherry pick" the Bible,...we all do it to some degree or another, even those who profess to take the Bible as an inerrant whole.

My view is that whatever the Bible suggests about the nature of God, to the extent it is accurate, is coincidental. The Bible is a work of men trying to make sense of their universe and their various beliefs in God. Assuming there really is some god of some sort, I would expect it/she/he to have qualities and a nature completely independent of any Biblical suggestion. My guess is that a book on flowers would more accurately describe God.