Why did Jehovah Kill all the animals in the flood? What purpose did it serve??

by pistolpete 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • pistolpete

    Some of my jw family that is waking up posed that question to my jw family that is still hanging on to jw belief.

    The stepbrother that posed that question told me;

    "In all these years of being a jw, I actually never gave it much thought as to why Jehovah had to kill millions of innocent animals that had nothing to do with mankind becoming evil."

    I keep picturing in my mind, all the baby puppies and kitties that were destroyed by Jehovah. I can't come up with a good reason why a God of love would do that and it's messing me up. I haven't slept for days just trying to figure out why Jehovah did this.

    Was there really no way Jehovah could have just killed the wicked without hurting the millions of innocent animals???

    Nothing makes sense anymore.

    The Jw family that is still hanging on couldn't answer the question.


  • Magnum

    That question haunted me from day one. As JWs, we were taught to really meditate on and visualize Bible accounts, but I think that can backfire on JWs. I can't stand to visualize the flood account long, but I've done it enough to picture the horror of animals treading water until they give up.

    In the past few years, I read an account of a man (I think in Florida and who I think is an attorney) who was offshore (I think several miles) in his small pleasure boat. He found out there was a raccoon that had been sleeping somewhere on the boat. He somehow (don't remember exactly) got the raccoon into the water and left him out in the ocean to die a horrible death. There was a major outrage and a huge uproar. Imagine that scenario billions of times over.

    A few years ago, I found a half-grown dead squirrel in a 5-gallon bucket that was half full of water. I had left the bucket in my yard and I guess it collected rainwater. I don't know how the squirrel got in, but it couldn't get out and drowned. I was horrified, but that's nothing compared to what happened in the supposed flood.

    Not only puppies and kittens. I've raised four raccoons from infancy, and all four were beloved. They were playful, intelligent, feisty, affectionate, and social. They seemed to really love life. (One was seven years old and died two weeks ago from today. We took her into a neighboring state to the only vet we could find that would treat her. We spent $760 trying to save her. It was horrible. I loved her so much and she really seemed to love me.) I can't imagine those coons as babies or adults dying a horrible death such as an animal would die in a flood. I can't imagine elephants, big cats, or anything dying like that.

    I always secretly (except to my wife) hoped that Jah would resurrect those animals. I searched for clues in the Bible. I found a passage in Psalms that refers to animals' being in sheol. That gave me hope that they'd be resurrected since JWs taught that all in sheol (or hades) would be. So, I consoled myself by telling myself that maybe there was some answer that we don't know about.

    Great evidence indicates that animals have been suffering for millions of years - millions of years before man appeared on earth. So, JWs can't say that animal suffering started due to man's rebellion in the Garden of Eden.

    There's horrific suffering that goes on now that ruins my life thinking about it. I know I've mentioned this before on this site, but I'm going to keep mentioning it. There's a market in Asia where cats are beaten until they're staggering and then boiled alive because some people think that boiling them alive makes the meat taste better. There's a another place, also in Asia, where raccoons (or animals similar to raccoons) are beaten until they stagger and then skinned alive. I accidentally stumbled on the video and it horrified me beyond what I can describe. A raccoon, still alive, with its skin completely gone, was hung upside down by it's feet on something like a clothesline. It tilted its head up and looked at its skinless body; all it saw was muscle, etc. It was worse than anything I've ever seen in any horror movie. I could literally beat to death the person who did that.

    Imagine the precious creatures in the photo you posted slowly drowning, or being skinned alive, or being boiled alive, or being burned alive. I will not be able to die in peace knowing such has gone on and still does.

    Sorry for writing so much; this is a subject I think about constantly. To answer your question, I don't know why and would really like to.

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    Animals climbed up that bristlecone that predated the flood, all but the unicorn.

  • hoser
    Yes the 5500 year old pine tree in the mountains of California that somehow survived the year long flood. I guess Jehovah didn’t make it rain long enough
  • Rocketman123

    The animals at the time were sinful and evil, so god saw to it that they needed to be cleansed from the earth.

    Unfortunately Noah's flood turned out to be redundantly useless because after the flood mankind and all the animals turn back to the way they were before the flood.

  • Vidiot

    And then God had to go and make them all evolve hyper-fast to diversify from the few-odd thousand species on board to the hundreds of millions we have now, thoroughly confusing us poor creationists.


  • waton
    Animals climbed up that bristlecone that predated the flood, all but the unicorn

    hoser, even the adept climbers would have needed really long straws to breeze. The pines and sequoias grow at 3400 meters, the flood covered Everest, ~ 9000 meters. those trees were lucky to not being uprooted by the churning torrents of rain falling at a rate ~10 meters an hour. and withstand the pressure of 5 km of water above them, suffocate because no CO2 to breathe. no sunlight for photosynthesis, or to float to the surface like most dead wood,

    no wonder it left the snakes in the ark speechless, permanently.

    all collateral damage,a really bad example for the warfare to come***, that is supposed to sort out who was interested in the awake & wt, or jw org, gave a glass of water to the [false ] prophet.

    *** Armageddon is supposedly to be a greater disaster than the flood. welcome to wt land.

  • Diogenesister

    Love that picture P.Pete :))

    They just dismiss animals as lesser lifeforms that don't really matter. The most egregious passage in the Bible is the one in Genesis that says man should have Dominion over the animals, birds and fishes. It's allowed for such harm.

    But if the definition of a "person" is the capacity to suffer, practically all animals - and certainly vertebrates , no wait what about octopi? Nevermind make that all animals, are "persons".

    JWs aren't much different from many humans in that sense. As a veggie I think It's the one true "ISM" there really is, species-ism.

  • Diogenesister
    Great evidence indicates that animals have been suffering for millions of years - millions of years before man appeared on earth. So, JWs can't say that animal suffering started due to man's rebellion in the Garden of Eden.

    Yes they've found fossils of dinosaurs with cancer.

    So sorry about your Racoons. They have the most gorgeous little hands. I'd love to meet one, we don't have them here.

  • LeeT

    I like to try the following on flood believers.

    Think back before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when God consulted Abraham on how to deal with the townsfolk.
    Imagine before the flood that God had consulted you in a similar way. Only this time he had determined already that all the people and animals not destined for the Ark must die. He asks your opinion about two options.
    a) Poof the humans and animals instantly and painlessly out of existence
    b) Drown them in a flood, creating panic to avoid the rising waters followed by a slow drowning.
    Which would you suggest God does and why?

    I've never got a straight answer.
    The natural inclination is to go for option a) but knowing God chose b) creates a reluctance to choose a course of action other than that which God chooses. Yet choosing option b) is difficult to justify in the "why" part of the question.

    It is fun pitting somebody's morals against those of their God and seeing them squirm. It might not produce good answers but it does create dissonance.

    As a follow up you can try:
    Do you think a perfect God created just the right amount of suffering in the flood, any more or any less being somehow suboptimal for his plans?

Share this