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.

[bluethread]

As long as feels free to define "evil" as one pleases and apply that definition to every time that term is used regardless of context, just about anything can be called "evil" or "good" at the whim of the speaker. For example, what makes the existence of the life forms you list "evil" and how do you connect that with the term that is translated as "evil" by the English translators?

[Danmark]

As long as feels free to define "evil" as one pleases and apply that definition to every time that term is used regardless of context, just about anything can be called "evil" or "good" at the whim of the speaker. For example, what makes the existence of the life forms you list "evil" and how do you connect that with the term that is translated as "evil" by the English translators?

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

[Dropship]

In modern terms, the Ark was a "DNA Repository Craft", most Christians nowadays know it would have been impossible to get thousands of full-sized creatures aboard..
Incidentally Isaac Asimov once put forward the interesting theory that a gigantic meteorite splashed into the Indian Ocean, raising tsunamis that swamped the earth and washed the Ark up the Tigris/Euphrates valley to Turkey's Mt Ararat..

[Divine Insight]

The flood myth has so many absurdities it truly is a miracle that any thinking human being could believe that it might be true.

Forgetting about the idea that the act would be and "evil act" committed by the God, why not just consider why he would bother to even use something as messy as a flood in the first place.

This God is supposed to be omnipotent and capable of anything at all. "With God all things are possible". Therefore he could have used any number of far better solutions to deal with this problem.

Here is my own personal list of just a few suggestions:

1. Don't be so stupid as to allow things to get that far out of control in the first place.

Any God who just sat back and allowed things to get this far out of control would already be an extremely inept God. I could offer countless things that he could have done to constructively and productively deal with the situation far earlier, long before things ever got this far out of control.

The idea that he would just wake up one day and proclaim that he's sorry he ever created mankind implies that he wasn't even paying attention in the first place.

2. Assuming that he was stupid enough to actually let things get this far out of control in the first place why not simply make the sinners impotent? Incapable of procreation? That would have solved his problem within a single generation and he wouldn't have needed to kill anyone premature to a natural death.

Moreover, think of how funny it would have been had God been bright enough to make sexual perverts totally impotent and even unable to have an erection or orgasm. That would stop their sexual behaviors instantly.

And why continue to place new souls in the wombs of these evil women? What was this God thinking?

Surely they could not create new souls without God's help?

This whole story assumes that this creator has absolutely no control at all over the creation of new souls.

3. Finally, even if we're going to get violent and actually kill these people why bother with a messy flood? Isn't this the same God who turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? Why not just turn all these people into pillars of salt?

In fact, why not just wave his all-powerful finger and simply make them all disappear. He could have just as easily turned them all into fruit trees right where stand and create an instant beautiful fruit orchard.

I mean, seriously, if this God is capable of anything, then he could supposedly do any of these silly things.

4. Here's another solution (assuming this God was foolish enough to allow this situation to get this far out of control in the first place).

Since God was still foolishly placing new souls in the wombs of these pregnant sinning women, and there were obviously still young babies and children who had been born by these sinning women why couldn't this God have at least done the following:

a. Instruct Noah to build a huge nursery school instead of an ark.
b. Turn all the adult sinners into piles of clean diapers.
c. Instruct Noah to go around and bring all the young children and babies into nursery.
d. Noah could even ask some of the older children to help bring in the diapers.
e. Then have Noah and his family raise these innocent children correctly with good parenting skills (something that this God himself seems to be lacking).

This would have been a better solution. But it still would have been a far belated solution to a problem that should have been nipped in the bud long before it got this far out of control.

This whole story describes an extremely inept God.

The story itself was no doubt sparked by an actual flood and it just grew to become the superstitious religious fable that it has indeed become.

The idea that modern day preachers and theists actually think that some real God would behave this poorly, or be this stupid, is nothing short of amazing. It's a testament to just how lowly evolved humanity truly is. We really are just primates that are only learning how to reason. And unfortunately this causes many of us to reason so poorly that we actually think that absurd things are reasonable.

No Supreme Creator of this universe could be as stupid as the Biblical God is portrayed to be. If a Supreme Creator exists, it certainly has nothing to do with the Bible.

[bluethread]

As long as feels free to define "evil" as one pleases and apply that definition to every time that term is used regardless of context, just about anything can be called "evil" or "good" at the whim of the speaker. For example, what makes the existence of the life forms you list "evil" and how do you connect that with the term that is translated as "evil" by the English translators?

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

One what basis do you declare your definition of "evil" to be the only "reasonable definition of the term" and binding on the Hebrew term that the English translators chose to apply that term to.

[Danmark]

As long as feels free to define "evil" as one pleases and apply that definition to every time that term is used regardless of context, just about anything can be called "evil" or "good" at the whim of the speaker. For example, what makes the existence of the life forms you list "evil" and how do you connect that with the term that is translated as "evil" by the English translators?

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

One what basis do you declare your definition of "evil" to be the only "reasonable definition of the term" and binding on the Hebrew term that the English translators chose to apply that term to.

Where did you read the word "only?" I presume you are aware "any" and "only" have different meanings.

[bluethread]

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

On what basis do you declare your definition of "evil" to be the only "reasonable definition of the term" and binding on the Hebrew term that the English translators chose to apply that term to.

Where did you read the word "only?" I presume you are aware "any" and "only" have different meanings.

Well, you said that any reasonable definition would agree with what you call evil in the first paragraph. However, if you insist on being pedantic, on what basis do you say that there isn't any reasonable definition of the term that does not include those things.

[Student]

In modern terms, the Ark was a "DNA Repository Craft", most Christians nowadays know it would have been impossible to get thousands of full-sized creatures aboard..
Incidentally Isaac Asimov once put forward the interesting theory that a gigantic meteorite splashed into the Indian Ocean, raising tsunamis that swamped the earth and washed the Ark up the Tigris/Euphrates valley to Turkey's Mt Ararat..

No doubt you can provide the appropriate link / citation to the relevant article / paper, containing this assertion by Asimov.

[Ancient Paths]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history,...

Foul. I get that you believe the great flood is a myth, but the premise with which you began this thread is itself an assumption of falsehood/myth. Whether the flood took place is not a settled and proven matter except in the minds of some people. We can examine evidence for or against the flood, but to assume that it never took place considering that none of us alive today were there to witness the flood or the lack of a flood at that time, is a faulty premise.

...it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man.

Evil, perhaps, in your definition of the word, but it sounds like your definition of evil is based on pop culture and not on biblical exegesis.

It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.

"the god who perpetrated this evil" is again an example of assuming congruence between your understanding of evil and how evil is understood biblically.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "shortly," but from Adam to the flood took about 1,500 years according to the biblical timeline. Also, he did not call "all of his creation" evil. Mankind had enough information to live in a manner that would bring blessing to themselves and please their Creator, but they chose otherwise. This leads to a tangential argument about the creation of good and evil in the garden, however, which I will avoid following here. Finally, I don't see where God changed his mind about who he was going to wipe out. As I read the account in Genesis 6, it seems pretty consistent on that point.

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.

As bluethread pointed out, you are superimposing a definition of evil that is your own, or at least one that is not equivalent with the biblical context. God made lobsters. Lobsters have pincher claws that hurt people when people are pinched. Does that make lobsters evil? No, lobsters have a purpose, which is to eat ("clean up") the dead and decaying fish that eventually sink to the bottom. That makes lobsters good by biblical understanding.

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.

"It's obvious..." is yet another assumption. You might as well as begun with, "Everybody knows..." Perhaps you feel that this God doesn't set a good example because you recognize in the story that you would not have been among the few on the ark. Naturally, any God that would not bend over backward to make an exception for you must be evil, right?

I'd call the wanton destruction of every living thing on Earth 'evil.' I call the infliction of physical and emotional pain 'evil.' I call torturing Abraham by demanding he kill his son evil. These are all evil acts by any reasonable definition of the term.

Again with the assumptions... God's destruction of most living things on Earth is evil by popular culture's standards. Is capital punishment evil? Some say yes, others say no. Reasonable people disagree. Here, God was exercising capital punishment. You're so concerned with assuming that God is evil for doing so that it apparently doesn't even cross your mind to ask or wonder why or to look for patterns in how God interacts with his creation.

Your whole argument is based on assumption and innuendo.