I'm reading the Flood story in Genesis. I was trying to justify the
Flood, since I reasoned that God is perfect and thus his acts should
inspire me, as they inspire so many evangelical Christians who read the
Bible. But I had a hard time arriving at a justification for the Flood
that satisfied me or made me feel good.
Then, I considered:
Perhaps I am right to feel sad about the vast bulk of humanity and
animals perishing in the Flood. God himself may have regretted sending
it, for God promised never to send another Flood again, and God resolved
to put up with humanity's sinfulness after the Flood had subsided. God
even put his war-bow in the sky, perhaps as a sign of peace that
indicated that he would not wage war against humanity.
Once I
considered the possibility that God in the Bible was not absolutely
perfect, even his sending of the Flood appeared to be understandable.
Extreme, mind you, but understandable. God regretted creating human
beings when he beheld their corruption, their violence, and the way that
the boundary between humans and the divine was being breached, as the
sons of God married the daughters of men. God appreciated the one
righteous man he could find. Perhaps God went too far in wiping out
most of life with the Flood, but God's love for righteousness and
disgust with wickedness was understandable.
There are Christians
who will have a problem with what I just wrote. They claim that God
changing his mind is not literal but is figurative, for God is perfect
and does not need to change his mind. Why can't they take the Bible at
face-value, when they criticize others for not taking the Bible
literally, in areas?