The Instigator
winnerjosh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
debater12332
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Was God flooding the earth justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
debater12332
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,008 times Debate No: 72244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

winnerjosh

Con

Let me preface this argument by saying that I am an atheist. I was raised to believe in Christianity and I have learned most of the stories that the bible teaches. I was also taught that the Old Testament section of the bible shouldn't be taken literally but as an interpretation of what happened in the beginning. When I look at that passage in the old testament I cannot see what the bible is interpreting. Therefore I am going to assume for the sake of argument that God (according to the bible) did in fact flood the earth. Good luck contender and I hope we both learn something :)

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.
debater12332

Pro

I accept your challenge.

You stated...

'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.
Debate Round No. 1
winnerjosh

Con

You claim that because people disobey God's rules that they warranted being killed. I must ask what rules God enforced during that period of time. When I learned about the Old Testament in school I was taught that no rules God created existed at that point. 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. I am also unfamiliar with what destruction was to come upon the earth if God didn't start the flood.
debater12332

Pro

'You claim that because people disobey God's rules that they warranted being killed. I must ask what rules God enforced during that period of time. When I learned about the Old Testament in school I was taught that no rules God created existed at that point.'

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.'

Genesis 6:5
'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.
Debate Round No. 2
winnerjosh

Con

Before I begin my argument in the 3rd round I would like to say thank you for bringing certain information to my attention such as rules that God had in place before the flood. Although I don't believe that warranted killing almost every person on the planet, it has made me think about the subject from a different perspective.

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!
debater12332

Pro

'Even if there was chaos throughout the earth and destruction would you still defend God's actions of killing everyone?'
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.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
You are very welcome! I am glad you have been able to see the symbolism within the story of Noah's Ark. I just hope you can continue to discover more about faith and consequentially grow closer to God.

I will admit the Old Testament is dark at first glance. But the stories and passages found in the Old Testament can be explained. If you have any further questions about the Bible, Christianity or faith in general, feel free to let me know.
Posted by winnerjosh 2 years ago
winnerjosh
I would like to thank you sir. You have opened my mind to a new Side of the story I did not previously see before. The baptism relation to the flood was something I have never thought about before when I was taught about the bible when I was a child or in my high school studies. Although I do believe that a lot of the Old Testament stories are very dark in nature I do think there is some message to be found there. Once again thanks!
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
Well first off I actually respect that you are open to learning about different viewpoints. Catholicism should be open to questioning. Blind faith is not nearly as deep as faith through use of reason and revelation. There is a difference between condemning and questioning, and too often do i see people coming to conclusions before they actually understand the subject matter. So I commend you on your openness.

Now, the flood doesn't actually represent an earthly phenomena like an asteroid or anything of that matter. Rather, the flood symbolizes a Baptism. It makes sense that a flood would be symbolic for Baptism. Firstly, both deal with water. Water is the essence of both. Baptism goes hand in hand with water. A flood goes hand in hand with water. Also, the flood symbolizes the cleansing done in a Baptism. Think about it like this: A baptism removes sin. The Flood removed the sinners from the world. It is clear to see how a flood came to represent a washing away of sins.

Also, people can break the rules they create. And God could break His moral codes that He set in place, but He never will. If He did, He would be fallen. And since God cannot be fallen, He will never break His moral codes.
Posted by winnerjosh 2 years ago
winnerjosh
I do still believe someone who writes the rules can break them. When I think about God breaking his own rules I cannot help but think of a child making up a game and bending the rules when he is losing (a far step from the bible but nevertheless what I think of when I hear about God breaking his own rules). I also cannot fathom what the flood could interpret. Maybe a meteor crashing down on the earth, an ice age that could wipe out multiple species and so on. I have given it thought for a long time in my life and tried to see both sides to the argument and at one point saw taking life away in the case of God justifiable. However I have grown up to see things differently and would like to see as many sides as it takes to fully make up my mind.
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
The story of Noah was intended to be a metaphor. The Catholic Church does not, by necessity, hold the story of Noah to be an account of what exactly happened in the past. It would be unreasonable to conclude any man (and Noah was just a human man unlike Jesus who was both human and divine) could gather together one of each kind of animal on the planet. And since this alone discredits the historical account of the story, it is understood that the story of Noah is simply a means by which a message is portrayed about faith. And because the Noah story did not actually happen in its literal form, then God did not flood the planet to kill anyone. By arguing that God killed humans in the flood, you are arguing for an event that did not occur.

As you said earlier, the Bible needs to be interpreted by the Magisterium. So the argument should not be whether God was justified in killing the humans in the flood since God never did kill every human besides Noah and his family in a flood. You would be arguing the literal in a story that was intended to be relaying the figurative.
Posted by Benaiah 2 years ago
Benaiah
Please acknowledge that since you are 'accepting' the possibility of there being a god- and if that god is the same one who flooded earth then he is also the one who they say is the measure of justice and law. Therefore if you are going to argue over the flood and accept it you have to accept the context it comes in.. that includes the god that you are talking about. Which as I stated before can commit no wrong as he writes the rules of the world. He can't break them cause he made them. (please don't try to combat that with a moral obligation issue- its a non falsifiable statement)

Now please don't call me out for being arrogant or whatever.. I mean that argument to bring scope to everything. Any argument makes the most sense when you have the whole picture, so I would like to encourage you to consider the idea that we might not be capable of understanding true justice or if there is even such a thing.

Also- not trying to pick a fight! I am looking forward to this argument and cant wait to see where you guys go with it, best of luck to the both of you!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BoggyB 2 years ago
BoggyB
winnerjoshdebater12332Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.