Today I want to talk about another issue which often comes up in debate with Christians especially when you are in a debate about morality:
The Global Flood as described within the 7th chapter of the book of Genesis.
There are several moral issues I find with this particular story in the Bible and it is my intention to lay them out right here.
Before I do so here is just a quick disclaimer about what the purpose for this article is and what it is not: Within this article I concede, though I do not think this is true, that the Flood narrative as presented within Genesis is scientifically possible and actually occurred. I also concede, though I do not think this is necessarily true, that the objections which Christians present to me in defense of the Flood are in accordance with the Bible.
My aim in this article is to expose some of the implications that the Flood has on the moral nature of God.
Typically the first thing that is brought up is that the world used to be very wicked back in the day and the giant deluge was simply God’s way of removing the wickedness.
But let’s think about this for a second: Was everyone truly wicked at that time and place. I mean sure it might very well be that there were many wicked people at that time but was it truly everyone? Presumably there were babies around at that time. Were they wicked? It might very well have been that there was a pregnant woman around at that time. Was the baby residing inside her body wicked? After all God was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of 10 people (Genesis 18: 32) so one would presume that the bar was set significantly lower when it comes to the destiny of the entire world. That is if God is consistent. He already spared 6 righteous people with Noah and his Family so adding the baby and the woman would make them a total of eight which one would presume was gonna be enough for God to spare the planet. Now this is of course only an assumption on my part based on what other verses within the Bible tell us but if God is consistent within his nature I would say it is a fairly reasonable one.
Besides even if he absolutely had to get rid of the wicked people then there are several ways to do so without throwing the baby out along with the bathwater:
God could’ve gone the route of simply making those evildoers drop dead by simply switching their brains off. You know: The good ones get to live the wicked ones cease to be. This is effective concerning the protection of the people whom he considers good.
It is also effective insofar as it is also a quick and easy death for the evildoers. I think we can all agree that there are more pleasant ways to die than by drowing. It takes minutes to get it over with, you are struggling to try to preserve your life, it is psychologically tormenting because you go through the realization that this is it and that death will set in at every moment etc. . Surely the God of the Bible wants to preserve needless suffering if he is loving and good. So then why go the difficult way of drowning them when he could have made their death quick and easy?
Now even if one were to argue that these people were so wicked that they had it coming, the people were far from the only group of living entities who were subjected to the Flood:
Enter the animals. The animals did do nothing to even cause the Fall and are therefore not responsible for the wickedness which God sought to punish. Would it not have been therefore reasonable and merciful for God to spare the completely blameless creatures instead of just including them as casualties for the heck of it? Yes he did spare some animals on the Ark of course but the vast majority of them died and suffered because they were drowned including members of their family, which no doubt left some of them emotionally scarred. Finally of course the Flood also destroyed a lot of food resources which meant for the animals decades if not centuries of struggle for survival because God could not think of a better way to solve his problems with humanity then destroying the planet. Talk about an overkill.
One apologist soundbite which I also frequently hear is that God left the choice open to enter the ark to all people who wanted to come aboard. The people refused to do that and they thereby killed themselves.
If that sounds completely unconvincing to you, that’s the case because it is completely unconvincing. Let me paint a picture for you here:
Let’s say I had a nuclear bomb which potentially could destroy China (country with the largest population: 1.42 billion people) as a whole. I warn the people of China in advance that I am gonna drop the bomb on them. But they all have the opportunity to flee on a planet which I have sought out for them on which they could live and which has enough food sources which has an atmosphere and which has everything they need to survive and thrive. All they have to do is get on my spaceship which is large enough to fly them all to this planet and the bomb is not gonna be of consequence to a single human. Now for whatever reason only a few million take me up on my word and actually go on my spaceship which takes them to this special planet. The rest of them are killed by my bomb.
Question: Did I commit Genocide?
I think it is abundantly clear that I did. Yes true enough I did offer them a way out of their predicament. They did not take it. But I am still to blame for creating this predicament to begin with, I am still to blame for following through with it and I have the blood of billions of people on my hand.
This is true irrespective of whether the decision of the Chinese was smart or dumb. This is true irrespective of whether or not the Chinese contributed to their own deaths. And it is especially true for those people who did not get to make their own decision in the first place, namely the babies inside the womb as well as out of it and the children who needed to obey the authority of their parents who decided that their family was not gonna book their travel.
Maintaining otherwise is the textbook example of victim blaming and we should not do it in my case or God’s.
Christians maintain that God is good. I think most of them would agree that needless suffering is not good. As I think I have demonstrated there are countless ways in which God could have spared billions of lives of both humans as well as animals had he opted to remove the wickedness of certain humans from the planet in another way of simply flooding the planet.
As a very wise man once said: “You will know them by their fruits.”
I suggest you take a close look at them and evaluate for yourself whether you wanna take a bite. But be careful:
If you are Christian, then you should know how things can end up when people eat fruits that are best left untouched,
Goodbye from yours truly,
René von Boenninghausen @Renevelation