Why was there a need for a global flood?

You are stumbling into a trap. You do not have any evidence of the flood outside of the Torah's testimony to such an event. You therefore, must accept the entire story that the Torah describes, and you can't take what you like and leave what you don't like. Noah was building the ark for about 100 years and this is enough time for everyone in the world to find out about it. Also, Noah was a well known individual, and people did not consider him to be crazy. They knew what the world was like, and they realized that G-d may cause the worlds destruction. Like I said, if you are going to believe in the story of the great flood you are going to have to accept the entire tradition about what was happening in that time. Otherwise, you can deny the idea that the flood ever existed because you have no evidence for any of it.

Is that so? Please explain when you started to become an atheist and explain what your real motive is. Also, if you were told that G-d expects nothing of you, would you remain an atheist?

I see some of what you are trying to say, but I don't think it answers my question.Consider the following two cases:(1) I say that God will only spare you from hell if you hop up and down on one leg and hum "The Star Spangled Banner". I am a lunatic.(2) I say that God will only spare you from hell if you hop up and down on one leg and hum "The Star Spangled Banner". God himself told me so. I am a prophet appointed by God.Now, how do you tell the difference between case (1) and case (2)?You can't read God's mind, so the only criterion you can apply is whether you think I'm a prophet of God or a looney.Now, if case (2) was in fact correct, and God had appointed me to give a warning, then nonetheless people would think I was a looney rather than a prophet.Could we blame them?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No! In your case, nobody would be responsible to listen to either of these men, and nobody should listen to either of them. Noah was not coming with weird commandments. Adam was already taught right and wrong, and he taught it to successive generations. Noah could not have come with a new commandment and expected the people to believe him about it. Furthermore, G-d would never do such a thing. They were only responsible because they knew of the wrong that they were doing. Suppose I come and tell you that you are not supposed to kill. Then I say if you continue to kill, G-d will make you lose your arms. This would be perfectly logical to anyone that you inform about this. This is because it is already known that killing is wrong. The same applies to the generation of the flood. If you read my description of that generation, you would not ask how they were supposed to know that what they were doing was wrong. They all knew what they were doing was wrong, and that is why they were held responsible. Nobody should ever listen to a weird prophet that comes with any new unknown law. This is against the Torah.

Clearly it wasn't. If God desired to end the evil of mankind, he could just have zap-poofed them out of existence, without the need for all this ostentatious flood nonsense. You're right, those are good questions. That's a pretty silly question. It is absurd to think that everyone living could be irredeemably evil, including children. It's simply preposterous. Do you really believe in evil children? I kind of expected you to answer with the old Adam and Eve bit. Suffice to say that I can't imagine why anyone else should be punished for their so-called "crime". If this is your objection, you're really going to have to take it to another thread, because it's way off topic here. If humans must have free will, then why did God take away that free will by killing everyone? What free will can an infant have when it is killed by a vengeful deity before it before it has cracked its first smile? You are contradicting yourself. This in no way follows. Why should one person's evil corrupt anything else? If there was no turning back for humanity, what meaning could there be in offering repentance? Where exactly does it say this? What, all of them? If so, where did Noah get his animals from? If not, then it seems obvious that some of the animals would have been uncorrupted. Are we to believe that the only uncorrupted animals in the world just happened to live near Noah? Does that include animals foreign to the region? Please show me an evil infant. Suggesting that a baby can be evil is twisted Op-n M-nd. You're one sick puppy. So they deserved to die because they practised birth control? Do you think that everyone who practises birth control deserves to die? Plus, if they were so keen on preventing births, why not just let mankind wipe itself out? Can't say I've heard any atheists saying this. Also, you're getting quite close to telling me what I think again. Let's just say that I disagree. Are you saying that it is better to see children dead than being abused? Are you saying that it is better to kill them before they leave the crib than see them grow up to chose evil?Again, this makes a mock of your talk of free will. What free will can such children have when God takes away their chance at a life?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Off-topic on this thread - though it might make a good one.And if you were told that Maui wants nothing of you, would you start believing in him?

Er ... hello ... the second case that I brought up was: what if I am a prophet appointed by God.If I was a prophet from God, would you say that no-one should listen to me?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You know your responses are just too funny! You do not even pretend to have read my post completely. Your retorts demonstrate that you either have no idea what I am saying, or that you are just responding to every line of my post for the sake of argument. Your method of attack is not conducive to a reasonable debate. Take the very first response that you made to my first quote for an example. I am explaining how what I wrote answers the threads question which asks why G-d created a flood and did not give instant death instead. I already explained why G-d did not just go poof and destroy all of the evil. This is because he wanted to first give His creation a chance to repent. G-d does not enjoy destroying His creation. But your answer to this shows that you did not even read my post. You just write: I have already explained why G-d did not want to do this. But you seem to want to give an argument against every line that I put on this message board regardless of whether it has any logic to it or not. Here is another example of where you clearly show that you either don't care to have a normal debate, or that you do not even want to read what I am saying: Your response clearly indicates that you did not read the parentheses in the quote. You also ask why one person's evil should affect anyone else. Let me give you a little example, do you know what peer pressure is. Are you really going to put forth the claim that people are not influenced by their surroundings? That is absurd and you know it. Furthermore, this is what Judaism says, and they are the ones that have the story of the flood. If you don't believe in Judaism, don’t believe in the flood. But, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe in, in order to mock a religion. If you really want to know what the religion has to say about its own stories, you have to accept the religious explanations. Now here comes another example: Now your well thought out response. I have already said that the Torah testifies to this. It says that all flesh had corrupted their ways on the earth. Why not read the Torah before asking me? This also shows that you had no idea what I was talking about. If it is not clear why don't you first ask, and try to have a normal discussion. I am not attacking you. I am only explaining the Jewish story of the flood. You seem to be trying to attack everything I say without even knowing what I mean. I was explaining that you do not have any proof that any infant existed altogether. I then go on to explain how the people were using birth control, and they were acting in a selfish manner when engaging in sexual pleasures. I was trying to point out that no people really desired to have children, and therefore you have no proof that children even existed. But instead of asking me you write this: This makes absolutely no sense if you actually understood what I was saying. Again, why must you attack what I am saying all the time? You are picking a fight here, not looking to understand my point of view. Then comes this: I did not even come close to telling you what you think. You say that you disagree and you don't even explain yourself. Also, to start, why not look at some of Agobots posts for starters. He wrote this in the Evidence of G-d thread. And finally: Does this mean that you are against abortion? But this is a side issue. I must ask you nicely to start posting as if you are serious about the debated topics. You seem to be doing nothing but attacking every single word that I write. Then you accuse me of not being open minded. Please pretend to be having a serious debate or I will discontinue any correspondence with you. You have to explain where I go wrong, and ask me about things you don't understand. If all you are going to do is attack everything I say for no good reason, there is no point in my continued response.

Yes. G-d would never send a prophet with such a message because nobody would be responsible to listen to him.

Hi, Open MInd. This is a dodge. You are just objecting to Granny’s use of the word “desired,” and haven’t answered the question at all. Try inserting the word “intended” in place of “desired,” and you’ll see that the central thesis of the question is not harmed in any way.So, why did God use a Flood to kill all the people when He could have just zap-poofed them out of existence? That’s the whole point of this thread, after all. Okay, so this isn’t very on-topic, but I can’t just let it slide, because I find it very offensive."Where does it say this?" is, in fact, a very well thought-out question. It’s probably the most common question you’ll ever encounter in logical debates. This is because, if a debate does not require its participants to support their arguments, then the participants could literally say whatever they want to. Demanding support for an argument is the often the only way you to find out if it's true.Granny wants you to provide a citation from the scriptures: what problem could you possibly have with that?Maybe you have a problem with it because you have been caught in a complete lie: the Torah does not say anything about changes to animals' mating practices before the Flood in response to the wickedness of mankind, nor does it say anything about animals' motivations for having sex. What it says is that, "...all flesh had corrupted their ways on the earth" (assuming your quotation is correct: you didn't supply a reference). You have inserted your own interpretation of that phrase, and Granny Magda has called you on it.Now, instead of admitting that it was a personal interpretation, you have gotten upset at Granny for not taking your word for it. That's not the way to promote honest debate, you know.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I did not dodge the question; maybe you should read my original post and see how I clearly answered the question. G-D GAVE THE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO REPENT. Go back and read what I wrote before attacking me as well. Also, I have not made my own interpretation on this verse. This is the meaning of this verse in accordance with the Jewish oral tradition. I will tell you like I tell other people. If you want to believe the story of the flood, you have to accept the explanations given by Judaism and that includes the oral tradition. Otherwise, you can just ignore the whole story to begin with. You have no logical basis to pick half a story and then criticize it. If you are interested in the truth of this story, you must accept the explanations given by the religion that makes reference to the story.

Hi, Open MInd. But, this is exactly what God allegedly did in Noah's time!Another prophet told the people to march in circles for a week and then yell really loud, in order to take down a city's walls.So, you would believe a prophet who tells you to march in circles, but not one who tells you to jump up and down on one foot?Glad to know you have your standards, man.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Maybe you should read what I wrote. I can't stress it more. I think I was very clear about the difference between Noah's times and any other scenario. Also, if you are refering to Joshua, Moses handed over command to Joshua when he was still alive. Joshua was known as a true prophet of G-d. I am glad to see that you like comparing apples and oranges. Have fun!Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

Hi, Open MInd. What on earth makes you think this answers the question?The question is not about God's morality in killing people, nor His motivation for killing them, nor why they deserved to be killed: the question is about why He killed them with a flood instead of turning them all into pillars of salt or just zap-poofing them into hell.To coin a modern analogy: Why did Col. Mustard use the lead pipe instead of the revolver?If you can't understand what is being asked of you, you shouldn't criticize other peoples' reading skills nor accuse them of ignoring your answers. Incidentally, though, I did ignore your answer, because it was the answer to the wrong question!!! No, you very specifically said that the Torah says this. Now, you've changed it to "the traditional interpretation." There is a significant difference there. And I will tell you like other people have told you. What if I don't want to believe the damn story? How then do you prove to me that it's true? It can be done, you know: I didn't want to believe in evolution five years ago when I first took Biology 100, but, here I am, a staunch evolutionist.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Open MInd. You are unbelievably close-minded, Open MInd.Moses and Joshua asked the Israelites to do some pretty ridiculous things, you know. "March in circles," "Look at this statue of a serpent at the end of my stick," "Paint blood on the doorframe of your house," etc.Yet, you believe that this is somehow completely different from, "Jump up and down on one foot," "Cross your eyes and stick out your tongue," "Do two push-ups and spit into the holy spitoon every night before bed," etc.Somehow, the fact that a prophet of God said it makes it a completely different fruit to you. Did you ever pay attention to the part where the Israelites only had Moses' and Joshua's word that they were the prophets of God!!? Not once did God actually come down and tell the people that Moses or Joshua was His prophet.So, if Dr Adequate came up to you in an internet forum one day and told you that he was a prophet of God, you would have exactly the same amount of evidence that he was telling the truth as the Israelites had that Moses and Joshua were telling the truth. Yet, somehow, you fail to notice this.Good day, mate.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.