The great flood

The Great Flood Whether the Great Flood described in Genesis actually occurred is still, today, a hotly contested debate. Scientists recurrently attempt to utilize science and technology to measure geologic formations and perform various analyses on composition as a reference to refute the occurrence. Concomitantly, theologians and philosophers maintaining (at least) identifiable belief and conviction in the integrity and truth of the Great Flood continue to support the sanctity of God’s word as the only relevant and viable methodology of assessment, believing in the reality of the disaster. There is, however, a new direction of analyzing this debate, a new variable in the hypothetical debate equation, that deals more with human behavioral characteristics to explain why the debate continues to rage. Psychological models of the human propensity to utilize defense mechanisms to block out uncomfortable or disturbing thoughts point toward psychological maladjustment in sparking the foundations of this debate. In Genesis, God declared that the reason for the flood was a legitimate regret for creating man, based on what society had become during this time period. It is consistently reinforced not only in religious dogma, but in many Christian-focused organizations whereby candid discussion from Christian instructors consistently reinforce the ferocity of God’s acts and intentions. Those who do not distort the words within the Holy Bible will, therefore, repeat (verbatim) the historical record as identified by this widely-trusted Holy resource where it is disseminated to the congregation. The viciousness and intensity of the act maintains the potential to emotionally disturb those who make no distinction between the Son and the Father, thereby focusing on the conceptions from Jesus Christ speaking of tolerance, mercy and forgiveness. These are rules, certainly, provided for men and not intended to be a template for God’s behavior, something nearly consistently forgotten when men compare themselves to their Creator. Having explained the potential dilemma of not making identifiable distinctions between the Son and the Father, it is more favorable, psychologically, to maintain focus on positivist thinking in which preservation of the self is a primary objective. Psychology recognizes the defense mechanism referred to as reversal, in which an individual engages in “ spinning” a discussion to reflect more favorable outcomes. For instance, one might turn weakness into strength (Williams College 2010; Weiten and Lloyd 2005) as a type of denial. Many scientists have discovered compelling evidence that such a flood existed, thus supporting many with self-proclaimed faith, providing more legitimate warrant for ending the debate. It is not just the non-believer that refutes the existence of the Great Flood, but it is the Christian supporter that openly proclaims there is ample margin for misinterpretation in the Holy Scripture rather than simply accepting the knowledge as gospel. Two geologists serving as university professors iterate the following in an effort to cast light on the debate surrounding the Great Flood: “ We are now somehow quite content to have allowed science to alter our thinking on these verses, without abandoning notions of inerrancy or inspiration. The reason is simply because it was eventually recognized that the primary message of these verses was never on the nature of nature, but on the nature of man” (Davidson et al. 1998). These respected educators and geologists identify some additional support for psychological theory and the nature of the defense mechanism in protecting oneself from difficult thoughts and experiences. It is clearly identified in the aforementioned statement that people tend to forget that the ideology behind the flood was to correct the plague of man from the planet. Thus, this creates a psychological connection between the consequences of wrath and secular teachings regarding autonomy and independence, which conflict with the message of this portion of Genesis that paints a portrait of God as a vengeful and relentless entity. By replacing conceptions of Jesus Christ with those offered in the story of the Great Flood, it would, theoretically, create a more comfortable emotional position for the individual who can thereby deny the existence of the incident for their own self-protectionism needs. Though only an opinion project, this essay casts a different light on the nature of the debate over the relevancy and accuracy of the Great Flood. People who deny the event, but consistently reinforce their own personal values with those they find more pleasant or gratifying, would be using defense mechanisms to maintain self-reassurance that one can turn toward God, always, for ever-lasting mercy and support rather than fulfilling promises of forceful vengeance. The defense mechanism and distorted thinking that is irrational seems to be the culprit for what continues to fuel this debate both in the Christian world and the secular world. References Davidson, Gregg and Ken Wogelmuth. Solid Rock Lectures, “ Christian Geologists on Noah’s Flood”. Accessed January 13, 2013. http://www. solidrocklectures. org/attachments/Christian_Geologists_on_Noahs_Flood_D avidson_and_Wolgemuth. pdf Weiten, Wayne and Margaret Lloyd. Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. United States: Thompson Wadsworth, 2005. Williams College. “ The Defense Mechanism Manual”. Accessed January 13, 2013. http://web. williams. edu/Psychology/Faculty/Cramer/Defense%20Mechanisms. pdf