God and the flood

[AV1611VET]

Does this hypothetical assume that everyone that drowned in the biblical flood, from unborn fetus to the adult disbelievers, deserved what was coming to them?

Children in the womb don't drown.

 

[anonymous person]

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

That's great, but to derail off into what the Nazis used as a justification for their deeds is not going to happen here in my thread.

Stay on topic please.

 

[anonymous person]

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?

I'm sorry. I have no idea what you are talking about. Seems like word salad to me.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Stay on topic please.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

That's great, but to derail off into what the Nazis used as a justification for their deeds is not going to happen here in my thread.

Stay on topic please.

I think it's worth pointing out that when you start claiming that whatever God commands or does is, by definition, moral then any atrocity could be justified. Earlier, for example, you appeared quite comfortable portraying these hypothetical people as those 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."

Let me paint another picture. Your hypothetical people undoubtedly had children. One of them was probably six years old and perhaps a girl. She had a favorite thing to do, a favorite food to eat, and she had a name. Her eyes had a certain color and there were some certain things that made her smile; that made her laugh.

She was drowned. Not by accident, but on purpose. Someone decided that her parents deserved to die, and because she was their daughter she needed to die too and they drowned her. Her blood was not "pure" apparently, and they felt that the human race needed to have its bloodlines purified.

One day it started to rain and the ground erupted and the waters rose higher and higher. There was panic and terror, people tried to find shelter and safety and could not. Perhaps her parents tried to save her and had to watch her drown while they struggled; perhaps she ran to a friend or her older brother for help; perhaps she cried. . .or perhaps not. Regardless, she died in agony - afraid and gasping for breath.

To say that intentionally drowning a child is moral because whatever God does is moral seems, to me at least, to be a view that is utterly bereft of both empathy and merit.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll play devil's advocate, just for the fun of it, bro.

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

[devil's advocate mode]

Love.

Love wouldn't justify killing innocent men, women, and children.

[/devil's advocate mode]

 

[anonymous person]

I think it's worth pointing out that when you start claiming that whatever God commands or does is, by definition, moral then any atrocity could be justified. Earlier, for example, you appeared quite comfortable portraying these hypothetical people as those 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."

Let me paint another picture. Your hypothetical people undoubtedly had children. One of them was probably six years old and perhaps a girl. She had a favorite thing to do, a favorite food to eat, and she had a name. Her eyes had a certain color and there were some certain things that made her smile; that made her laugh.

She was drowned. Not by accident, but on purpose. Someone decided that her parents deserved to die, and because she was their daughter she needed to die too and they drowned her. Her blood was note "pure" apparently, and they felt that the human race needed to have its bloodlines purified.

One day it started to rain and the ground erupted and the waters rose higher and higher. There was panic and terror, people tried to find shelter and safety and could not. Perhaps her parents tried to save her and had to watch her drown while they struggled, or perhaps not. Regardless, she died in agony - afraid and gasping for breath.

To say that intentionally drowning a child is moral because whatever God does is moral seems, to me at least, to be a view that is utterly bereft of both empathy and merit.

God did not command Noah to drown anyone. God brought the flood upon the earth Himself. He took their lives. The lives He gave them which they used for evil He cut short.

Your problem is that you do not see sin the way God does. This is understandable. None of us do unless God reveals it to us and I think many times we are hindered from seeing because we don't want to see.

You see these people as people not really deserving of death. God did and killed them.

If He had not acted, I see no reason to think any of us would even be here to talk about the issue. Mankind would have long since destroyed itself.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

God did not command Noah to drown anyone. God brought the flood upon the earth Himself. He took their lives. The lives He gave them which they used for evil He cut short.

Sure. In your scenario God is the kind of person who drowns a six year old girl if her parents are bad people.

Your problem is that you do not see sin the way God does. This is understandable. None of us do unless God reveals it to us and I think many times we are hindered from seeing because we don't want to see.

Okay.

You see these people as people not really deserving of death. God did and killed them.

We're in agreement there. God is the kind of person who sees a six year old girl as deserving to die a terrifying and painful death because her parents were bad and they proceeds to kill her. Got it.

If He had not acted, I see no reason to think any of us would even be here to talk about the issue. Mankind would have long since destroyed itself.

Unfortunately, you haven't supported this claim. That's certainly an interesting opinion. . .but that's all it is.

 

[bhsmte]

Another pro-lifer. Welcome to the club.

You bet.

I am very pro life. Once a person is born, I believe strongly in protecting their life. Until a fetus is viable outside the womb, I strongly support the mothers rights.

 

[bhsmte]

Children in the womb don't drown.

Not technically, but they do suffocate, from lack of oxygen, which is basically what kills a person who drowns as well.

 

[nomadictheist]

The biggest problem I see is arguing this from a perspective of humanism...

Ultimately, when you talk about the thousands (or millions) of babies and children who had not yet reached the age of accountability, every single one of them had one of two possible destinations once their physical bodies died.

So, had they lived on, they would've almost certainly ended up in the bad destination. However, God mercifully took their lives along with all the evil people who were beyond that age so that they would spend eternity in a more pleasant place.

Additionally, just imagine how much grief and suffering all those children would've gone through if they suddenly lost their providers and protectors.

Then, the other inaccurate assumption of humanism is that people are basically good - that is - innocent.

The problem in this case is that humanistic philosophy and theistic philosophy are incompatible. Theistic philosophy assumes that the Bible's account is true, and therefore every human - from the moment he or she is conceived - deserves death. God mercifully withholds it from us for a time, but that doesn't mean that it isn't deserved - however (or whenever) it comes.

Theistically, animals also don't have souls - and they're all headed for death anyway.

So there was nothing immoral about anything that God did in the flood.


Another point that is often ignored is that God doesn't have one attribute at the expense of another. His love doesn't cancel out His justice, nor does His mercy cancel out His judgment.

 

[AV1611VET]

The biggest problem I see is arguing this from a perspective of humanism...

Ultimately, when you talk about the thousands (or millions) of babies and children who had not yet reached the age of accountability, every single one of them had one of two possible destinations once their physical bodies died.

So, had they lived on, they would've almost certainly ended up in the bad destination. However, God mercifully took their lives along with all the evil people who were beyond that age so that they would spend eternity in a more pleasant place.

Additionally, just imagine how much grief and suffering all those children would've gone through if they suddenly lost their providers and protectors.

Then, the other inaccurate assumption of humanism is that people are basically good - that is - innocent.

The problem in this case is that humanistic philosophy and theistic philosophy are incompatible. Theistic philosophy assumes that the Bible's account is true, and therefore every human - from the moment he or she is conceived - deserves death. God mercifully withholds it from us for a time, but that doesn't mean that it isn't deserved - however (or whenever) it comes.

Theistically, animals also don't have souls - and they're all headed for death anyway.

So there was nothing immoral about anything that God did in the flood.


Another point that is often ignored is that God doesn't have one attribute at the expense of another. His love doesn't cancel out His justice, nor does His mercy cancel out His judgment.

Wow!

Good post!

Sounds like you've had some extra schooling!

 

[quatona]

Wow!

Good post!

Sounds like you've had some extra schooling!

Genocide Apologetics for advanced learners?

 

[bhsmte]

This thread is a carbon copy of the other thread, the OP left.

 

[anonymous person]

The biggest problem I see is arguing this from a perspective of humanism...

Ultimately, when you talk about the thousands (or millions) of babies and children who had not yet reached the age of accountability, every single one of them had one of two possible destinations once their physical bodies died.

So, had they lived on, they would've almost certainly ended up in the bad destination. However, God mercifully took their lives along with all the evil people who were beyond that age so that they would spend eternity in a more pleasant place.

Additionally, just imagine how much grief and suffering all those children would've gone through if they suddenly lost their providers and protectors.

Then, the other inaccurate assumption of humanism is that people are basically good - that is - innocent.

The problem in this case is that humanistic philosophy and theistic philosophy are incompatible. Theistic philosophy assumes that the Bible's account is true, and therefore every human - from the moment he or she is conceived - deserves death. God mercifully withholds it from us for a time, but that doesn't mean that it isn't deserved - however (or whenever) it comes.

Theistically, animals also don't have souls - and they're all headed for death anyway.

So there was nothing immoral about anything that God did in the flood.


Another point that is often ignored is that God doesn't have one attribute at the expense of another. His love doesn't cancel out His justice, nor does His mercy cancel out His judgment.

Excellent points, all worthy of meditating on.

 

[anonymous person]

Genocide Apologetics for advanced learners?

Genocide is not wrong is it?

What would Rumi say?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

. . .had they lived on, they would've almost certainly ended up in the bad destination.

I don't think that you actually know this. It certainly doesn't state this in the text.

Moreover, "almost certainly" means that some percentage of them would not be sent to hell.

However, God mercifully took their lives along with all the evil people who were beyond that age so that they would spend eternity in a more pleasant place.

Additionally, just imagine how much grief and suffering all those children would've gone through if they suddenly lost their providers and protectors.

Okay, so God is the kind of person who decides to drown children because their parents are bad because he is so committed to drowning as the means by which to kill people. That doesn't seem like mercy to me. . .

Then, the other inaccurate assumption of humanism is that people are basically good - that is - innocent.

The assumption I'm making is that drowning children because their parents were bad is not moral. Are you disagreeing with this?

Theistic philosophy assumes that the Bible's account is true, and therefore every human - from the moment he or she is conceived - deserves death. God mercifully withholds it from us for a time, but that doesn't mean that it isn't deserved - however (or whenever) it comes.

Arguments of this sort always remind me of the fall of Beziers during the Albigensian Crusade. The church called a crusade to destroy the Cathars in France, who among other things did not recognize the authority of the pope. When the city of Beziers refused to open their gates to the papal army attacked the city and stormed the churches where its people took sanctuary. The papal legate was asked how they were to tell the heretic Cathars from their fellow Catholics and he answered, "Kill them all. God will recognize his own." And they were - thousands of men, women, and children.

I don't think that if God had given that same order at Beziers it would have been moral, do you?

 

[anonymous person]

You bet.

I am very pro life. Once a person is born, I believe strongly in protecting their life. Until a fetus is viable outside the womb, I strongly support the mothers rights.

Sure. In your scenario God is the kind of person who drowns a six year old girl if her parents are bad people.



Okay.



We're in agreement there. God is the kind of person who sees a six year old girl as deserving to die a terrifying and painful death because her parents were bad and they proceeds to kill her. Got it.



Unfortunately, you haven't supported this claim. That's certainly an interesting opinion. . .but that's all it is.

I want to follow this out with you for a minute.

God should have spared who?

You tell me who God should have spared from the flood.

Six year old girls?

 

[anonymous person]

I don't think that you actually know this. It certainly doesn't state this in the text.

Moreover, "almost certainly" means that some percentage of them would not be sent to hell.



Okay, so God is the kind of person who decides to drown children because their parents are bad because he is so committed to drowning as the means by which to kill people. That doesn't seem like mercy to me. . .



The assumption I'm making is that drowning children because their parents were bad is not moral. Are you disagreeing with this?



Arguments of this sort always remind me of the fall of Beziers during the Albigensian Crusade. The church called a crusade to destroy the Cathars in France, who among other things did not recognize the authority of the pope. When the city of Beziers refused to open their gates to the papal army attacked the city and stormed the churches where its people took sanctuary. The papal legate was asked how they were to tell the heretic Cathars from their fellow Catholics and he answered, "Kill them all. God will recognize his own." And they were - thousands of men, women, and children.

I don't think that if God had given that same order at Beziers it would have been moral, do you?

Whatever God commands is what is obligatory, whatever He forbids is forbidden. This is Divine Command Theory of which I am an adherent.

 

[029b10]

Children in the womb don't drown.

That's true since they are not capable of breathing until around the 24th week at which point they begin producing surfactant which is required before the lungs could support the developing fetus giving it any chance of survival outside the womb.

From what little I know about the subject I do recall reading that those who are in the know have made great strides in the advancement of synthetic surfactant that will greatly increase the viability of a fetus even before 24 weeks.

I find that the 24 weeks particular interesting since the at 6 months the babe leaped in Elizabeth's womb especially since it is written in and Angel had told Zacharias that his barren wife Elizabeth shall bare him a child, a he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. Pretty much the same as in the OT wherein the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. 4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no rasor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.