Was God flooding the earth justified
Debate Rounds (3)
I do not believe that God could justifiably flood the earth even if he created life. When I look at God's actions I think of a mother giving birth to a child and why we have laws in the US that prevent mothers from killing their children. I also think of my personal ant colony I keep in my home away from the harsh climates outside. In a sense if I let my colony go, most will die from cold weather or rain. No matter how many ants I keep I could never warrant taking their lives because they didn't recognize my actions of "saving" them in a sense from those climates. I am not ignorant enough to say that technically it's not me giving them life it's the queen of the ant colony however in a sense I am preventing unnecessary death.
I do not see a difference with the Christian god. If I was God I wouldn't care if anyone worshiped me or even acknowledged my presence. I was just like the life I am caring for to be happy.
'If I was God I wouldn't care if anyone worshiped me or even acknowledged my presence. I was just like the life I am caring for to be happy.'
Now unlike ants the people in the time before the flood new that God created them and they had sinned knowingly.
God also has a plan for humanity and he was saving the old world from destruction.
Some rules that applied were...
1. God condemned murder and he punished Cain for killing Abel.
2. God condemned humans from eating animals until after the flood.
Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were cast outside of the Garden of Eden, God said: "And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.'
'Three times in the first three chapters of the Bible, God instructed man regarding his diet. Each time, the Bible records only where God permitted man to eat vegetation.'
The bible never says that humans are aloud to eat animals until after the flood
Also,if God said that people were sinning than that means some law was set in place to define sin.
'Instead from my research and indoctrination I learned that God wiped the slate clean because all people in the world forgot about his presence with the exception of Noah.'
'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'
God wiped out humanity for their sins. I can not say for sure what sins they commuted because the bible does not specify.
'I am also unfamiliar with what destruction was to come upon the earth if God didn't start the flood.'
I take it that you are referring to when I said...
'God also has a plan for humanity and he was saving the old world from destruction.'
I am talking about two things when I said that.
1. If Gods aloud them to continue in sin than humanity would eventually have destroyed themselves.
2. Also I am referring to them being sentenced to death on the day of judgment (talked about in Revelation) and being cast into the lake of fire.
Now I also think that their were many other reasons for God's flood,but since I wasn't their and I do not want to speak for God I cannot say my reasoning is 100% accurate.
If the people were constantly sinning and only a few good people were left,than they would either eventually die, be killed, or fall away from God. All that would be left is a world in chaos and without God.
Even if there was chaos throughout the earth and destruction would you still defend God's actions of killing everyone? If he was powerful and truly wanted good throughout the land why didn't he isolate the people in a way so that destruction could not occur. Why didn't he simply take away man's tools for wrong doing? You will probably answer because God wants free will in all humans. The ability to make their own decisions. I'll argue that a decent God would do anything in their power to make a happy and successful society.
Let's argue that all humans were evil, destructive and there was no way God could separate them, change them, or make them change their mind. What about the animals of the world? Did they warrant to be wiped off the earth? Animals aren't make to many moral decisions, so why did God see fit to wipe them out? In my opinion I would never kill an animal and I would even debate about killing one in a self-defense situation because they do more for the world than I do.
And as for the "Day of Judgement" isn't God sending all those people to hell by killing them? I don't think he had some special exception for those before us. Therefore it would only make sense if those people died, they went to hell.
I hope you enjoyed this debate and I want to thank my contender for participating!
Yes I would for the simple reason that he is the God that he created everything and knows what is best.
'I'll argue that a decent God would do anything in their power to make a happy and successful society.'
True,but we do not know how many chances he gave the people at that time or how many times he warned them.
'What about the animals of the world? Did they warrant to be wiped off the earth? Animals aren't make to many moral decisions, so why did God see fit to wipe them out?'
God did save at least two of every species and the reason God allowed the rest to be wiped out could be do to the lack of their moral decisions and the fact that they can not think and feel like us.
'In my opinion I would never kill an animal and I would even debate about killing one in a self-defense situation because they do more for the world than I do.'
This is a topic for a whole other debate.
'And as for the "Day of Judgement" isn't God sending all those people to hell by killing them? I don't think he had some special exception for those before us. Therefore it would only make sense if those people died, they went to hell.'
Yes,they will be judged at the end of time,but if I were God I could not just stand by and watch as humanity slowly and painfully destroys itself.
In conclusion I find that the flood was justified.
Thank you for this debate I really enjoyed it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BoggyB 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins this debate because of arguments: Pro showed how humans were sinful and destructive, and that they sinned knowingly. He also showed how God had warned humans of the penalty of sin and. How God was enforcing the rules, which consequently justifies him flooding the earth. Con also began in the last round to debate topics and opinions irrelivant to the debate at hand such as his views of animals worth and whether animals deserved to be killed.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.