The Global Flood Was an Act of Divine Kindness

This is a genuine wonder that we found at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Their article is titled An Act of Grace.

It was written by Mark Etter, about whom we know nothing, but we discussed something he wrote before — see Are You a Freak Accident of Evolution? We wrongly attributed it to ICR, but it was posted at AIG. Anyway, here are some excerpts from Mark’s latest, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In the flood, grace and punishment are two sides of the same coin. [Huh?] For example, God’s rainbow promise never again to flood the world followed the global flood. Some picture the flood as a vindictive action but fail to see the mercy that God showed humanity. [Mercy?] God promised a Savior to Adam and Eve, but man’s continued wickedness had earned God’s grief with the exception of Noah and his family. If evil overcame this last family, who would be left to bear the Messiah?

We’ve already expressed our opinion of the flood. For example, in Was the Genesis Flood Too Cruel? we asked:

But what about the infants, the unborn children, the puppies, the song birds?

And we quoted an earlier post of ours where we said:

Yahweh killed everything on the face of the Earth (except for what was in the Ark). Pregnant women — dead. Their unborn babies? Dead. Little children playing with puppies? Dead. Butterflies and songbirds? Dead. That goes far beyond “mere” genocide. It’s deliberate death on a planetary scale — global slaughter.

But you already know what we think of the flood. Let’s see what Mark thinks. He says:

With grief in his heart [Really?], God proposed to destroy the earth with a flood to save one family and the hope of the Savior to come. Grace would take the form of punishment so that God might save his people.

Ah yes, that explains it! Then he tells us:

In a world where humanity often calls evil good, God still has to be the defender of his people. It is God who ends the reign of tyrants. It is God who must defend the widow and the orphan upon the earth as well (Deuteronomy 10:17–18). God has promised to preserve his people.

No doubt about it — the global flood makes perfect sense. Mark continues:

The church is not immune to evil’s influence. It continually struggles with the desire to give in to the darkness and fend off infiltrators and compromise from worldly sources. Abortion and unbiblical sexual behavior are tolerated or done in secret. Living together is accepted and practiced by many. [Gasp!] In grace, the Lord stands up to evil inside and outside the church so that faith survives among his people. He defends the righteous by opposing the wicked. We may see it as punishment, but it is also grace.

All clear? Good! Let’s read on:

It is a comfort to us that we have a defender like the Lord, to protect us from evil, without and within. I picture Noah living in a world so ungodly that Lamech boasts about killing another man (Genesis 4:23–24). How would Noah and his family have been able to stand up to such evil alone? How would we stand up to sin without the grace of God?

This is our last excerpt, after which Mark ends with a bible quote:

While we may suffer hardship and death in this fallen world and be grieved by the evil around us, we can trust in the God of grace and justice.

So there you are, dear reader. Now you know that the global flood was an act of amazing, incredible benevolence.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

12 responses to “The Global Flood Was an Act of Divine Kindness

  1. I often think of the parallel reasoning about good & evil with truth & falsehood.
    Whatever justification there is for acts of God like the Universal Flood, is there not a parallel justification possible for other-than-the-truth-the-while-truth–and-nothing-but-the-truth?

  2. chris schilling

    “Grace would take the form of punishment so that God might save his [sic] people.”

    Logic this graceful and incontrovertible can only be expressed in the shape of a pretzel.

    (Mmmm… pretzels). 🥨

  3. “Grace would take the form of withholding the full truth so that God might save his people.”
    That’s a justification for the Bible not telling us that the Earth is, like Mars, a planet of the Sun, and that life has been evolving for billions of years.

  4. Dave Luckett

    As usual, I point to the readiness of the Bible-bashers blithely to add words and concepts to the Scripture. This grief that God had in his heart – there’s not a word about it. The only report of God’s feelings on the matter is Gen 7:7 “I regret that I ever made them.” Etter is Making Stuff Up, which is par for the fundy course. But there’s more.

    After it was all over and everything and everyone bar Noah’s arkload was dead, God said he wouldn’t do it again. No reason is given for that in the text. He just said he wouldn’t. Because it didn’t work? I mean, the first thing Noah did when he had wine available was to get dead drunk and naked, and curse his own son for accidentally seeing him. Doesn’t sound so very righteous to me. So drowning people is a bit like drowning sorrows. Noah did the latter, God the former, and neither worked.

    But see, this is why theologically the Flood story is a clunker. Sure, OK, it asserts God’s power and authority, but it also calls his wisdom and understanding into extreme doubt. He should have known that human beings are completely and inveterately depraved. I mean, theologians know that – the Church will tell you so at the drop of a biretta. So why didn’t God know that after the Flood, we’d just be the same as before? Omniscience on the fritz, that day? What?

    It’s always been a complete mystery to me why loony-tunes like this one want a real Noah’s Flood. Of course there never was such a thing, which is the real reason for not taking the story literally – but it also makes their God out as fuddled, silly, picayune, dopey, not very bright. He gets into snits and breaks his toys, like a toddler having a tantrum. He forgets stuff. He is mistaken, and his mistakes are childish. Oh, and he’s genocidal. Let’s not forget that. He might be completely random, but his punishments are epic.

    The temptation is to go all pop-psychology when confronted with raving ratbags like Etter, One finds oneself itching to ask him, “How did you get on with your father?” in the kind of mock-unctuous tones reserved for calming babbling dements, until the orderly can bring the straitjacket. Alas, dealing with him and his cohorts is not so simple.

  5. When grace takes the form of sausages or cheese I might be interested in joining their religion.

  6. Christian Apologetics means never having to say God is sorry…

  7. @Dave Luckett
    I think of the way that a old-fashioned father of a household, lord of a clan, boss of a gang, absolute monarch keeps control. He cannot risk losing control, so he punishes any deviation from his total control.
    Why do the faithful continue to refer to their God as a “lord” or other terms of a monarchy, when we mostly live in a republic or democracy? Who believes that the king can do no wrong?

  8. Dave Luckett

    I dunno the answer to TomS’s last question. I think the last westerner to have that notion was probably King Louis XVI of France, and he had the converse demonstrated to him in cutting fashion, a fate that also befell King Charles I of Britain, who was probably the last Englishman to think the same.

    In a purely technical and theoretical sense, Elizabeth II is said not to be subject to the law, but she and her posterity know for dead certain that it isn’t really true, and that any attempt to trade on that idea would be instantly disastrous.

    But it is true that God is conventionally addressed in the way an absolute monarch used to be. He’s addressed by title and function, not by name; any speech to him consists firstly of submission and adulation, and then requests, ending with more praise and submission. The most famous Christian prayer of all, Jesus’s own, follows that pattern.

    I wonder to what extent our development away from absolute monarchy has tended to make religious observance more alien?

  9. Eddie Janssen

    I think I said it before but it seems prerequisite for christians to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

  10. Could it be that the unnamed “US Major” quoted by Peter Arnett, in a report from Vietnam for the NYT of 8 Feb 1968, was in fact God?

    “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”

  11. Laurette McGovern

    What a load of BS!

  12. I think Mark’s writing shows signs of some bad neurotransmitters somewhere inside his skull.