Lets see what else is morally wrong from the Bible shall we? How about the Great Flood?
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STORY OF THE FLOOD
The story is contained in the book of Genesis in chapters six to nine. Ch 6 tells us that: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." (6,5). God was apparently greatly upset by this and his response to this was to say to himself : "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and the birds of the air, for I am grieved that I have made them." (6,7).
God's method of wiping out mankind was to create a flood. Ch 7 tells us that God said: "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (7,4). Later we are told : "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had breath of life in its nostrils died.
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. ? (7,17-24)
Later on ?"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the Ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry." God then tells Noah to leave the Ark "So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds - everything that moves on the earth - came out of the Ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (8:13-21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMINING THE STORY
Several features of this story need close scrutiny. We are told that man had become very wicked, and this seems to be the justification in the story for God's act of mass killing. However Christians have always asserted that God is all powerful and all knowing. But if God is all knowing then why did he start off creating man as he did, knowing that he would soon kill all but a very few of the people he had created? It is a very bizarre act indeed to create something knowing full well that you are going to destroy it in the near future.
We are told that God is very upset by the wickedness of man, but does this justify God's subsequent behaviour? We are not told what this wickedness is, but to answer the question I have just posed we could consider how we as human beings deal with wrongdoing. The most extreme form of wrongdoing in all human societies is considered to be taking the life of another human. And how do we as human beings deal with this extreme? In most civilised societies we refuse to kill the wrongdoer, instead we imprison them. So even in the most extreme case of "wickedness" we do not believe as civilised people that we are justified in punishing the guilty party by death. Yet in the Genesis story God punishes all humans for their "wickedness", whatever that "wickedness" is, by killing each and every human but for Noah's family.
The matter cannot be left there however. It is not only adult humans that God kills, because of course the method of mass killing he chooses to use kills all life, including all children and babies. One is left to wonder what great "wickedness" these babies and children have committed to deserve being killed too.
We should consider carefully the method God uses. Anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it is a quite terrifying experience. Furthermore God not only kills all humans, from babies to grannies, in an unpleasant way, he also kills all other animals on earth. So because of man's "wickedness" millions of animals are subjected to a terrifying and cruel death, even though they have nothing to do with man's "wickedness".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGING GOD'S BEHAVIOUR
The story in Genesis portrays an act of mass killing. Over the past decade I have debated this story with numerous Christians. All have, like the letter writers to the Independent, insisted that the story in Genesis is true however unlikely it is scientifically. Yet none had considered the really rather obvious moral dimension to the story until I pointed it out. Having done so, the response from Christians has been a revelation. I note here several responses, which deserve particular consideration.
?But God established a covenant with Noah!?
It is quite true that God promises "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" (8:21) and "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" (9:11). So what bearing does this promise have on the morality of the act that God has just committed? If a person was to commit an act of mass killing, but then subsequently promises not to repeat the act, that does not excuse or legitimise the mass killing. It is quite disturbing that Christians could suggest that a promise from God to refrain from an act of mass killing in the future somehow excuses or legitimises the cruelty and mass slaughter of humans and animals involved in the flood. Incidentally, God's promise does not stop him commanding the Israelites in Deuteronomy (7:1-5 & 13:12-16) to commit genocide against other semitic groups.
?God didn't enjoy the killing?
On pointing out to a sweet little old lady that the story did actually portray an act of wanton mass killing the sweet little old lady responded with the above comment. Poor God. God may not have enjoyed his act of mass killing but then one doesn't suppose that the humans (including children and babies) and the many animals he was cruelly killing enjoyed it either.
?Its rather strong to call it evil?
Another Christian listened carefully to the argument I have outlined above, and was unable to provide any counter arguments. I then asked her if she thought the act of mass killing was evil. She was quite upset by this and said that the word evil was rather strong to use. Let us consider how Christians respond to behaviour they disapprove of. I offer three examples:
In the spring of 1997 a number of churches in Northern Ireland and the South West of England were set alight. No one was hurt or killed in these fires. A number of priests gave various comments to the media about the fires. Words such as "evil" were used.
At Christmas 1995 a Bishop of the Church of England described the prize money in the National Lottery as "obscene".
In 1991 the House of Bishops of the Church of England published a report "Issues in Human Sexuality" which referred to "the evil of promiscuity" (p43).
These examples are just a few of many one could use. So if sleeping around is evil, if burning a valued building without loss of life is evil, then how do we describe the act of mass killing? What I have highlighted is the fact that some Christians have tended to seriously devalued words such as evil, but that when it comes to condemning the behaviour of their God many Christians become remarkably coy. The story of Noah's Ark and the flood is a story of quite remarkable evil, which deserves to be condemned in the very strongest terms because quite simply it is an act of genocide. It is also an act of quite incalculable cruelty towards, and mass killing of, innocent animals.
"God sent the people he drowned to heaven afterwards"
I suspect that some Christians advance this idea because they do feel very uncomfortable with God actions. But there is no comfort to be had from the story. The story explains in detail what God does, both before the flood and afterwards, but nowhere does it say that the people he has drowned are then sent to heaven. This is just a bit of wishful thinking.
And as someone has pointed out to me, given that God considered these humans "wicked" who had "evil all the time" in their hearts, and given that humans who are "wicked" and unrepentant are supposed to go to "hell", if God was going to send them anywhere it would be to hell rather than heaven.
?Its symbolic, and represents God's love?
Very many Christians believe that the story of the flood is a real story. Some Christians do believe that the story is myth or symbolic. However that does not resolve the moral dimension of the story, only the scientific dimension. Whether the story is factual or symbolic does not alter the moral dimension. Does the story encourage or promote virtues such as justice or respect for life? It does not. It remains a story of great evil and sets an appalling example as a story, be it real or symbolic.
"God would have sent those who were innocent to heaven"
As I've already noted, nowhere does the story say that people will be sent to heaven after being killed by God. Moreover, reading the story carefully, there is no mention of any person being seen by God as "innocent" other than Noah. Rather the opposite is true. As the narrative tells us "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (6,5) and Noah was "blameless among the people of his time" (6:9). The narrative also says of humanity "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21).
This particular response also implies that those who were "wicked" deserved to be cruelly killed by God. As civilisation has gradually developed we have increasingly rejected the use of killing as a punishment, but for the extreme case of murder (and most civilised countries reject even that). Yet God who is supposed to be "all powerful and all good" resorts to killing as a punishment for any "wickedness". God's standards actually fall well below the most civilised human standards. And God's disrespect for the sanctity of life is shocking.
There is another, even more profound objection to the suggestion. If you argue that God's killing of innocent people is acceptable if they are then sent to heaven what sort of example does this set to humans? That life here on this planet is of no consequence? That acts of killing on this planet can be justified or simply don't matter because the victims are going to go to heaven? That intense suffering through drowning is really OK? An anti-Semitic might say that if Jews were going to go to heaven after the Holocaust - then why get bothered about the suffering, cruelty and loss of life involved in the Holocaust.
These type of excuses for God's behaviour also overlook the fact that he also cruelly killed the entire animal kingdom but for two of each species. As I've already noted, anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it's a terrifying experience. Although God is supposed to be "all powerful" (so he could have chosen any method to do his killing) the method he chooses to wipe out humanity involves terrifying and needless cruelty to millions of animals and then the needless killing of these animals, who are entirely innocent of man's supposed "wickedness".
"Who are we to judge God"
This particular sentiment has been expressed to me quite a few times - though this particular comment is the most polite way it's been said. Most have been rather less polite - normally personally abusive or insulting.
In fact Christians judge God as well. After all they tell say that God is "all good" and people have personally told me how wonderful God has been to them. They are therefore making a judgement about God. And since some Christians frequently ask other people to follow this God it is only reasonable that we should make our own judgement too.
Some people might want to close their eyes to needless acts of mass cruelty and killing but that doesn't mean to say the rest of us should too.
Conclusions
God?s act of flooding the earth in order to kill mankind, like some cosmic Saddam Hussein, ought to be condemned unreservedly so perhaps the last word on the flood should go to the only letter to the Independent newspaper which addressed this moral dimension. The letter was written by Ronald Gray from Emmanuel College, Cambridge:
"Those who think the Deluge really happened might try imagining it with the eyes of Leonardo da Vinci, whose notebooks describe in detail the scene as the waters rose continually for 40 days; the hills crowded with people fighting for their lives against each other, and against wild beasts that had also made for the high ground, the starvation, the thirst, the parents killing their children to save them from further suffering. What had this "pitiless slaughter", as Leonardo calls it, "genocide", as we might say today, to do with any notion of justice??. Leonardo was, of course, centuries ahead of his time. Seeing how many still believe this moral, or rather immoral, fable to be true, I ask myself how many more centuries will be needed before he makes his mark." Independent 14-4-97.