Why was there a need for a global flood?

The real reason given for the flood and not any other method of destruction was to give the people of that generation a time to repent. Noah had to work hard building the ark for many years. Bringing the animals was not an easy task at all. Also, the entire time that Noah was building the ark, he would warn the people who noticed what he was doing of the purpose of his ark. The people had a chance to repent. G-d does not enjoy destroying His creations. G-d was giving the people a fair chance to repent, and the flood would not have happened. If you want more on this concept, see the book of Jonah. This book also gives the story of a wicked nation that is given the chance to repent. Even as the waters started to come down, it was not dangerous. The people had a chance to repent until the bitter end. The method shows an attribute of G-d's mercy.

You may not realize it but you have stumbled upon a very important question in Judaism, and all other religions for that matter. The question you are asking is: Why should I be held responsible for not believing in G-d if it does not make any sense? How can G-d punish people for not believing something? You now ask why G-d would imagine that anyone would be responsible to listen to what Noah was doing and accept it as a sign. Similar questions go along the lines of how can G-d expect little kids to believe in G-d while the great scientists are atheists? How can G-d expect anyone to believe in G-d if there are so many smart people that don't? All of these questions have been addressed already, and the answer uniform to all of these questions. The existence of a G-d is logical to children that have not tasted the sweetness of sin. However, when someone begins to engage in pleasurable sins, doubt will fill his mind and he will not be able to think clearly without the bias of leading his own life in the manner that he sees fit. Many people believe that they are intellectually honest with themselves, but this is not the case. Indeed, when one decides whether he believes that G-d exists he is being swayed by the bias of his own sins. It is hard to give up a pleasurable lifestyle and admit that most of ones pleasures have been sinful. Therefore, what seems to be intellectual honesty is nothing but falsehood. This kind of bias is clearly affecting human beings in all aspects of life. Now getting back to the topic at hand, the people in the time of the flood knew that they were being wicked. They also knew that G-d existed, before they began to taste the sweetness of sins. It was obvious to all of them that Noah was not a crazy man, and they knew that a punishment of this nature would not be so far fetched. People who openly deny the existence of G-d are actually wondering why G-d does not destroy them at any given instant. They use this as a proof against G-d. The people of the time of the flood were no different than the atheist of this time. They were trying to deny the existence of G-d in order to engage in their own forms of pleasure. They did not even need a warning because they understood that bad would befall them if they continued to deny G-d. G-d gave the warning as an act of mercy, and gave them a reason to want to repent.Just as a side note, I have explained that the waters did not start as a flood. In the beginning it was nothing more than a strong rain storm. Noah and his family went into the ark, and the people still refused to repent. Not only that, the people tried to prevent Noah from entering the ark himself. The wild animals were there in order to protect Noah from the sinners that wanted Noah to die as well.

I am trying to answer the question in the beginning of this thread. The question is why G-d used a flood in place of any other method of destruction. The question does not ask why destruction was necessary to begin with. But in case you think you have some good questions, let me inform you that the Jewish Rabbis have already come up with better questions. For example: Why did the animals deserve to die? What did they do wrong? What about any other righteous person in the world? Was Noah the only righteous person that existed? Also, you’re right, what about all of the innocent little babies? What did they do wrong? You would have a better question regarding the sin of Adam and Eve. Why should all of the children of Adam and Eve be punished for the sins of two people? Very good question. The answer involves the status of the world that existed in that time, and the reason for the world’s existence. The Torah describes the corruption that existed in the world at that time. The worst sins were being committed by every single human (other than very few individuals), and the world was a most barbaric place. Murder, rape, robbery, idolatry, and general immorality were all over the world. Let us just say that you would have had a miserable time living in that generation. People did not want to believe in G-d, and everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes. The purpose of the world is to have a human with free will able to receive reward for choosing good. However, if a human does evil, the entire world becomes corrupted. The entire world had become almost completely evil, and there was no turning back for the human beings (this is of course after the time given for repentance during the 100 years when Noah was building the ark). The Torah testifies that the animals were not mating in the normal manner, and even they were engaging in sexual pleasures without the will to have children. The animals had become corrupted because of the evil that the humans were polluting the world with. You mention about the innocent children as if such things must have existed. The people of that generation were trying out many different methods of birth control, and they had no desire to actually father or mother children. The generation of the flood was completely selfish, and they believed in the right to choose. Let us just say that the world was a torturous place, and letting such things continue would have been unjustifiable. Many atheists agree that if G-d does exist he would have all the right in the world to punish atheists. G-d was removing the suffering brought about by uncivilized behavior of the human beings. The children born into such a world (those that managed to be born through an accident) would not have enjoyed themselves. They would have not been cared for by their parents, and they would be molested by the savage humans. Then they would grow up to become savages themselves (if they would survive the torture). The flood should not be seen as a punishment but as merciful intervention into this world.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have already explained to you why a flood was chosen and not sudden . This was your question. This thread does not ask about the evidence for the Torah or the flood. If you have trouble with that you can discuss it elsewhere. But this has absolutely nothing to do with your question. You now ask as follows: This has nothing to do with this thread either. Remember, your question is why a flood as opposed to sudden . I have answered this one already. You must realize that whether G-d chose a flood or sudden you would still have the problem of why G-d would kill children and animals. Therefore, this question is actually off the topic. Maybe you can start another thread with this as the topic. However, asking it here does not make my answer any less valid.

Hi, BluejayI do not think there is any point in being rude in such a debate. I will try to point out your mistakes as nicely as possible. But, I do not want you to ignore what I am writing, and instead criticize how open minded I am. Below I have clearly given the question that started this thread: I think that this question clearly asks why G-d had to create a seemingly extravagant form of destruction instead of an instant . This is clearly stated by bluescat48 when he says the words "will now die." The question asks why G-d had to do anything if He was so powerful and destruction was necessary. Notice that it does not ask any of the following questions: Where is evidence for the flood? Why did G-d use a flood and not fire? Why was the world deserving of destruction? Why did the babies deserve ? Why did the animals deserve ? Even if all of these questions are completely valid, they are not being asked in this thread. I think it is clear that the question is: Why a global flood instead of instant ? This seems to be clear. Since the question is asks why a rigmarole was used instead of "die now," I have answered that "die now" would give no chance for repentance, while the rigmarole of the flood does give this chance. Again, why a flood as opposed to a pillar of salt is a different question than the one asked in this thread. There is actually no difference there, and I will explain why. The Torah is written in a very cryptic manner. According to the Jewish religion, the interpretation of the Torah was given to Moses in what is called the oral tradition. There is no interpretation which you can say is what the Torah is actually stating. You may not even be able to make a coherent translation in certain verses. Of course if you are reading from a Christian translation of the Torah, you will think that this is exactly what is actually written in the text itself. But you must realize that the Christians have taken many liberties when translating the Torah. They have to make it fit with the rest of their Bible. Christians do not practice half of what is written in the actual Torah. Why would you accept their translation as being the face value interpretation of the text? The only real "translation" of the Torah is the "interpretation" in accordance with the Jewish oral tradition. As I have already pointed out, this has nothing to do with this thread. Whether you believe in the story or not is moot. This thread does not discuss evidence of the flood, but rather it asks a very specific question: Why a rigmarole instead of "die now?" This asks nothing about whether the flood actually took place.

I have answered your question. If G-d would not make a rigmarole there would be no chance for repentance. Now please explain what difficulty still remains.

Is there any evidence of people living in these places at that time? You are asserting that there must have been some people that did not know of G-d or Noah. I am asking you if you have any evidence of such people. Also, I already told you that this ark was being built for one hundred years. Is that not enough time for the Egyptians to hear about it?

Is this proof that people existed at "that time" in Australia or Alaska. I have not seen any evidence of this yet. They could have all died out before the great flood. Then more people came there after the great flood. Would the evidence be able to show that this did not happen? Furthermore, let us assume for argument sake that the whole world was populated at this time, and there was no way of these people knowing about Noah or his ark. This does not mean that G-d should give an instant to "everybody." The people that lived in the area of Noah may not have been as bad as the people in the other parts of the world. Therefore, these people deserved to have a warning. Not everyone was worthy of a warning, and the people in Alaska and Australia did not get one. Notice how you question does not destroy the reason for the flood. Furthermore, even if everyone in the world had no warning, G-d was giving everyone "time" to repent. Noah had to build the ark for one hundred years. This time was worth something even if no warning was given since the people already knew that they were doing wrong. Also, remember that Noah had 100 years until the flood. He had more than enough time to spread the word.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.