God and the flood

[nomadictheist]

The Flood was probably local, for two big reasons:
1. The ancient accounts of the deluge are all in or near the Middle East. From Greece to China, they are all similar.
2. In Psalms I believe, David makes a very strong implication that he did not take Noah's Flood literally, but actually as local himself

From an assumption that it was local, God was resetting the order there to make way for another which would suffice for the revelations to come.

A thing to understand is that, by the very ancient interpretation, Yahweh was essentially the wind. You say His name every time you breathe in and out, and so this Spirit did all things through the air.
In which case, God shifted the winds from all the corners of the earth, focusing all storms on the East by which all the rain fell.

In fact, the Mediterranean Sea may have come from this, by which Eden sank into being that it is located in the Bible by many of the rivers which run through to it.

The flood was probably not local, for many reasons:

1. If the flood was local, than the covenant of the rainbow (that God would never again destroy the world with water) was nothing but a lie. There have been plenty of local floods since that time that have killed (in total) millions of people.

2. If the scripture is to be believed, the flood covered the tops of the mountains for at least several months. Now I'm sure I don't know everything about the properties of water, but one thing I do know is that water always flows in the direction gravity pulls it (whenever such direction is available). Therefore, it would be really hard to have a local flood that covered the tops of the mountains for any length of time.

3. The fact that God saved 8 people to go and repopulate the earth after the flood (according to the scripture), as well as 2 of each kind of land animal (there were 14 of each kind of bird, and several other animals, but no fish) is a strong indication that this is a worldwide flood. What is the point of saving enough of every kind of animal to repopulate the earth if those that are not livestock (man-raised) can just migrate back in after the flood is over?

4. If you believe the scriptures, man was not scattered over the face of the earth until after the flood (see Genesis 11), so the areas in which flood literature exist are irrelevant in the greater context unless you already disbelieve the scriptural account. Before Genesis chapter 11, human civilization was confined to the area surrounding its origin. The reason only these cultures have these accounts is most likely because the flood was forgotten, either intentionally or not, in those other cultures.

So, unless scripture is not God-breathed and absolutely true and God is a liar, the flood was in fact global.

 

[anonymous person]

The flood was probably not local, for many reasons:

1. If the flood was local, than the covenant of the rainbow (that God would never again destroy the world with water) was nothing but a lie. There have been plenty of local floods since that time that have killed (in total) millions of people.

2. If the scripture is to be believed, the flood covered the tops of the mountains for at least several months. Now I'm sure I don't know everything about the properties of water, but one thing I do know is that water always flows in the direction gravity pulls it (whenever such direction is available). Therefore, it would be really hard to have a local flood that covered the tops of the mountains for any length of time.

3. The fact that God saved 8 people to go and repopulate the earth after the flood (according to the scripture), as well as 2 of each kind of land animal (there were 14 of each kind of bird, and several other animals, but no fish) is a strong indication that this is a worldwide flood. What is the point of saving enough of every kind of animal to repopulate the earth if those that are not livestock (man-raised) can just migrate back in after the flood is over?

4. If you believe the scriptures, man was not scattered over the face of the earth until after the flood (see Genesis 11), so the areas in which flood literature exist are irrelevant in the greater context unless you already disbelieve the scriptural account. Before Genesis chapter 11, human civilization was confined to the area surrounding its origin. The reason only these cultures have these accounts is most likely because the flood was forgotten, either intentionally or not, in those other cultures.

So, unless scripture is not God-breathed and absolutely true and God is a liar, the flood was in fact global.

Good points.

For the sake of discussion, I never try and take the view that the flood was merely some localized flood. I tackle the issue head on and take the scriptures at face value and affirm that indeed the entire globe was flooded. For in so doing, I have to deal with the issue of all life being extinguished from the face of the earth save that which was providentially preserved by God.

 

[quatona]

People have children all the time knowing they will be born into a world full of sin and sorrow.

I guess no one in their right mind has children then. Which means your parents were crazy.

Good job quatona.
Fail...

Well, my parents neither created this world nor its laws and mechanisms, they didn´t decide that humans (e.g. me) should have "free moral agency", they aren´t omniscient, they aren´t omnipotent, they didn´t create me ex nihilo. So much for comparing apples and skyscrapers.

And still - although as opposed ot omnimax God they had to put up with a lot of things that weren´t their own making, although as opposed to omnimax God they wouldn´t know how I´d turn out - as oppposed to omnimax God they still didn´t decide to throw me in the garbage when I didn´t match their expectations. And if they had - they´d surely wouldn´t have summoned up the oscenity of claiming to love me inviolably and infinitely.

My line of reasoning has been the same all the time, and as long as you don´t address it I will have to repeat it with "different syntax forms".
In essence it says: When an omnimax God has certain goals, ultimate purposes, great goods he can simply create them, right away. So the entire "all the drama, all the crisis management was necessary to achieve a greater goal" defense is nonsense when we talk about omnimax God.

 

[quatona]

FINALLY!!

quatona my dear fellow, you have had a breakthrough!!!!

You have actually stated your argument in plain terms.

Bravo! It was like pulling teeth, but bravo!

Now to respond to your argument I shall put a question to you. Would you consent to having these limitations placed on you right now, so that you do not do things or think things or say things that would make you intolerable to God and a hindrance to His goals for man kind?

Firstly, we aren´t fellows. Spare your fake enthusiasm for your wife or your God or whomever, will you?
Secondly, this was not my entire argument. It was one example I gave.
Thirdly, no. What I consent with now that I live has nothing to do with creating a person the way he is (without asking for his consent, btw.). I have never seen stones complain about their lack of "free will", so...
Fourthly, since I am sure you don´t make up criteria up as you walk along and forget about them when they don´t suit your argument: I wouldn´t consent to be drowned, either.
If given the choice between those two I would prefer the first.
There are a lot of things that I don´t have the freedom to do. Or that I don´t even have an inclination towards. I don´t have an inclination to cut off my legs. I have never felt that to be a regrettable loss of "free agency". I have absolutely no inclination towards using physical violence (to the point of there being an inhibition to do it; it´s not a real option fo me) - and I am grateful for this limitation of my "free agency". So there.

 

[KCfromNC]

Out of curiosity, why is this thread in philosophy? How does this qualify as philosophy?

Looks like we're supposed to ignore the fact that a global flood never happened during the time that humans existed on the planet. So we're arguing about stuff we know is wrong based on faulty premises someone made up at random. Sounds like Philosophy to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Seems to me one would be to preserve the human race.

Couldn't that be accomplished with any less destructive means?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because they were the few, who despite having been born into sin, nevertheless did not use that as an excuse to do evil, but rather, sought to do right and thus found favor in God's eyes.

Okay, so why weren't the infants and children and animals and plants also spared?

No.

God caused the flood, not because people were born into sin, for if that were the case, Noah and his family would also have been swept away. Rather, the bible is clear. The flood came because men were corrupt and did only evil continuously and thought only evil continuously. Noah did not, nor did his family.

Did the infants and children also do "only evil continuously"? Why weren't they spared? What "morally sufficient reason" justified their destruction?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Me making mention of the fact that every person alive had been born into sin does not make it ok for you to take that, hold it up, and say this is why he believes the flood came, not when I have repeatedly stated why the flood came upon the earth and even quoted the verses which demonstrate this.

I didn't say that this "why he believes the flood came," so put your strawman down.

 

[bhsmte]

I generally don't consider "I had to kill all the children because their parents were bad" as a moral position. If you do then that's your call but I find your assertions utterly unconvincing here.

Indeed. I find that, morally bankrupt.

 

[anonymous person]

Looks like we're supposed to ignore the fact that a global flood never happened during the time that humans existed on the planet. So we're arguing about stuff we know is wrong based on faulty premises someone made up at random. Sounds like Philosophy to me.

Sir, the discussion at hand is one in which those engaging in it, for the sake of the discussion, assume that a global flood took place.

Carry on.

 

[anonymous person]

Indeed. I find that, morally bankrupt.

Another pro-lifer. Welcome to the club.

 

[quatona]

1. I find it somewhat concerning that people cancel broad general ethical agreements (e.g. that genocide isn´t a justifiable means of problem solving) just to save their inconsistent theology. I find it ironic that these are the very people who often claims the moral high ground, who tell us that "Without God everything is permissible", and who accuse us of denying God in order to justify our immorality.

2. As to A&E having been "free moral agents". Interestingly this illustrates a general problem with "free will".
Either they were actually totally free (i.e. without any limitations and dispositions due to their hard-wiring, their genetics, their hormonal make up): In which case they would have been random generators.
Or God had created them with such limitations and dispositions: In which case it can easily be argued that creating them with different limitations and dispositions wouldn´t have changed anything about them being "free moral agents" (in the contextual definition of the word).

3. As to God holding our "free will" to such high regards that he would even allow us to do things that he will kill and send us to eternal torture to:
What about heaven? We are told that sinful people ("we are all sinners") go there, and then sin no more. Something about their decision making must have been suddenly changed on that occasion. So God either knows a way to make people sin no more (without infringing on their "free moral agency"), or God has no problem with infringing on people´s "free moral agency".

 

[ecco]

In this thread I want to allow anyone who believes that if the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then such a God cannot possess certain attributes.

I do not believe the genesis account about the flood to be true. However, this thread is in the Philosophy section, so I should be able to address it.

I want them to list the attributes they believe are incompatible with such an act assuming it occurred, and give an argument for why.

Again, since we are in philosophy...

I believe the god who caused the great flood possesses most of the attributes normally ascribed to him:

• Eternality - god had all of eternity to think about his creation before doing anything.
• Omniscience - during this time, he knew exactly how his creation would turn out and how he would destroy (almost) all of it.
• Omnipotence - he built his creation exactly as he wanted to.

Omnibenevolence? Hmmm. No so much. No concept of morality condones killing all the things we love just to make a point.

 

[Davian]

In the philosophy of God, He's justified in anything He does. Not because He's the Maker, but because even morality itself does not precede Him. That would make the moral standard god, and not Himself.
If God makes a judgement, there is nothing but His own holiness to make that judgement upon, lest it be in error.

The critical thing often abandoned today on perceiving God is the sheer extent of this ultimacy.

Again you are at odds with what a.p. is saying. It looks like he is trying portray his theology as being about morality (...your silence and your cowardice was evidence of your carnal, sinful, self-centered, self-seeking callous nature...) while you are saying with God, "morality" (as used in the common vernacular) goes out the window, and God (particularly in the hypothetical of this thread) can do whatever he darn well pleases.

The trick, as I imagine it, is believing that this is "good" and "just" by some sort of internal rationalization that eludes me.

 

[anonymous person]

Well, my parents neither created this world nor its laws and mechanisms, they didn´t decide that humans (e.g. me) should have "free moral agency", they aren´t omniscient, they aren´t omnipotent, they didn´t create me ex nihilo. So much for comparing apples and skyscrapers.

And still - although as opposed ot omnimax God they had to put up with a lot of things that weren´t their own making, although as opposed to omnimax God they wouldn´t know how I´d turn out - as oppposed to omnimax God they still didn´t decide to throw me in the garbage when I didn´t match their expectations. And if they had - they´d surely wouldn´t have summoned up the oscenity of claiming to love me inviolably and infinitely.

My line of reasoning has been the same all the time, and as long as you don´t address it I will have to repeat it with "different syntax forms".
In essence it says: When an omnimax God has certain goals, ultimate purposes, great goods he can simply create them, right away. So the entire "all the drama, all the crisis management was necessary to achieve a greater goal" defense is nonsense when we talk about omnimax God.

There are a lot of things God cannot do sir.

Your issue lies within your conception of what possessing certain attributes entails. You think that because God is omnipotent that He can do anything. This is not a correct understanding of what omnipotence is when omnipotence is said to be an attribute of the God who is recorded as having caused a global flood, the God central to our discourse.

Secondly you are making my points for me. Your mom is a free moral agent who willfully decided to perform an act whereby she knew that you would suffer and experience pain. Not only that, but she voluntarily subjected her own self to pain and suffering so that a greater good, you coming into this world could be achieved.

If you take no issue with a woman who is neither omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent not only subjecting herself to pain and suffering so that a greater good may be achieved but did so knowing beforehand that you yourself would experience pain and suffering as a result, then I see no reason at all to take issue with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God doing so. A God who full well knows how to accomplish all He wills and the power to do so.

 

[quatona]

There are a lot of things God cannot do sir.

Like what?
You may want to already come up with those ultimate goals your God pursued in creating the world.
Once you have done that, and once you have told us what your omnipotent God is incapable of, we can take a look at the consistency of your claim that God couldn´t achieve those goals without planning and performing those atrocities.
Until then, I am working from the traditional Christian creed "With God everything is possible".

Your issue lies within your conception of what possessing certain attributes entails. You think that because God is omnipotent that He can do anything. This is not a correct understanding of what omnipotence is when omnipotence is said to be an attribute of the God who is recorded as having caused a global flood, the God central to our discourse.

Just going by the meaning of the word. If you think there are limitations to God´s abilities, feel free to tell me what they are.
And just in case "omniscient" doesn´t mean "knowing everything", either: Please tell me what God doesn´t know.
Just so the hypotheticals I have to accept aren´t coming bit by bit.

Secondly you are making my points for me. Your mom is a free moral agent who willfully decided to perform an act whereby she knew that you would suffer and experience pain. Not only that, but she voluntarily subjected her own self to pain and suffering so that a greater good, you coming into this world could be achieved.

If you take no issue with a woman who is neither omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent not only subjecting herself to pain and suffering so that a greater good may be achieved but did so knowing beforehand that you yourself would experience pain and suffering as a result, then I see no reason at all to take issue with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God doing so.

Because God is modeled after humans?
Well, I do see such a reason. Non-omnipotent people who aren´t creators of everything indeed are permanently and necessarily deciding on "greater good", "lesser bad" terms, due to the set-up of the world they haven´t created. Yes, humans have to to through pain, they have to go through suffering, they have to learn in order to know something, etc. Because God made it so, not because my mother made it so. My mother had to put up with the conditions God had created for us. God didn´t have to put up with them, and you can´t use them as an excuse for him. He invented them.

You simply ignored most of my points in this question and thus came to the conclusion that I made your point for you. Try again.
Btw.: As long as we don´t try to excuse mothers for killing their sons because they didn´t turn out to help their intended purposes, we aren´t even in any proximity to your point here.

 

[Davian]

Davian, it is not awkward for me to acknowledge anything. I don't know why you keep saying that.

I keep saying that, as when you are [repeatedly] given an opportunity to agree or disagree with a statement, you [repeatedly] deflect with something like "I responded to this already" or "You sound like a pro-lifer."

If it is not awkward, why do you not directly answer the question?

No. They were judged for their actions and for their thoughts continually being set on evil.

"I am not convinced" is not a conscious action, and you label it "evil" because your theology needs it to be so.

Holding one accountable for things beyond one's control is morally bankrupt. But that's okay, if it's "God"? Is that what Crowns&Laurels is saying?

The point of this thread was to give them that see an inconsistency in God causing a flood a chance to explain why they see it as an act being inconsistent for God.

I can see that there are no inconsistencies, as long as you are free to define the words and terms as you see fit to resolve such things.

 

[Davian]

The people were no less guilty for the fact that there were a lot of them doing evil and thinking evil continually. If the people that were judged were only thinking and doing evil continually, then they got what they deserved regardless if it were five of them, five thousand of them or fifty thousand.

To be consistent, you would need to consider "I am not convinced of your religious claims" as a conscious, evil act. Agree, disagree, or deflect?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

One reason was to preserve the human race. Another was to end the suffering and pain of those who by being unrepentant and wicked, were heaping up upon themselves untold miseries and sorrows. Another was to purify the earth of the defiled blood which had been shed upon it. Another was to purify the blood-line from which all of the nations were to come.

I feel like I've heard these arguments about preserving the human race, purifying defiled blood, and keeping pure blood-lines before. . .

 

[anonymous person]

I do not believe the genesis account about the flood to be true. However, this thread is in the Philosophy section, so I should be able to address it.


Again, since we are in philosophy...

I believe the god who caused the great flood possesses most of the attributes normally ascribed to him:

• Eternality - god had all of eternity to think about his creation before doing anything.
• Omniscience - during this time, he knew exactly how his creation would turn out and how he would destroy (almost) all of it.
• Omnipotence - he built his creation exactly as he wanted to.

Omnibenevolence? Hmmm. No so much. No concept of morality condones killing all the things we love just to make a point.

Ok good job Ecco. You have actually done what I asked and you recognize this is indeed a matter that is subject to philosophical inquiry.

I hope the others take note of you here.

So let's look at what you have said.

You said no concept of morality condones killing all the things we love just to make a point.

In response, let me tell you:

1. The text in question gives us at least one reason why God sent the flood and it wasn't just to make a point.The reason was that the people living at that time save eight, were incorrigible. They were like inmates we see getting ready to die on those documentaries who curse, spit, and carry on about how if they were able, they would jump up off the gurney and rape and kill everyone in the observation room. To such people, even the threat of certain death is not sufficient to restrain their madness. The people on the earth were like this from the oldest all the way down to they youngest.

But what about the poor babies in their mother's womb!!! What about the poor little innocent babies!!! You may say....

In response I will say that I have never seen so many people indignant over the killing of unborn children in my life than I have seen here in the past few days since discussing this issue. All of a sudden people who are all for abortion are all of a sudden against the killing of unborn children. As long as evil men and women decide to kill unborn children it's ok because they should have that right, but let God be found to take back the life of a baby He caused to be conceived in the first place and He is a monster.

Lunacy.

The pregnant women in that day were no less guilty of their incorrigibility just because they were pregnant. They should have walked up into the ark. Then they and their child would have been saved alive. They didn't and they perished and their child was immediately ushered into the presence of God having been spared from being born into and raised up in the most evil time in human history.

It's one of those things where God can do no right. Whatever He does, someone will accuse Him of evil.

Let's say He spared every pregnant woman and every baby born and every child that had not yet become morally culpable. If He had done this, you would have people accusing Him of being morally bankrupt for killing their families and destroying their tents and livestock. The fact that He let them live would be no credit t God in these people's eyes, for they are fault finders.

So it seems to me while this discussion can be fruitful in showing us that our conceptualization of certain issues needs to be ammended, it will not cause a person who is a fault finder to cease from their fault finding.