Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong?
This question is loaded. I would take the view that all other worldviews get things wrong. And probably all of them get some things right. The loaded part of this question is contained within the brackets. Although I do take the view that Christianity is in principle correct, there are many flaws and things wrong with it. And this flows out of its doctrines in any event - because it holds to the view that our minds and our hearts are tainted by sin. This of course begs the question: is our understanding of sin incorrect? And the answer is "probably". Certainly our view - even in Christ - is not perfect and is clouded by sin about sin.
The implication of understanding this, however, is one of the strengths of Christianity. It is that we know we are flawed people - in a flawed religion - with real flaws. We do not pretend to be perfect - even though we do agree in principle that our worldview is correct. We know that others worldviews and their priests are going to find flaws in our thinking. Yet all this really does is send us back to our first principles - and back to the Bible to determine if there are other ways of looking at a particular point. And for the record, this is what most people in every worldview does most of the time, i.e. go back to their first principles. It is very rare to see for instance an atheist discovering flaws within their worldview to suddenly ditch their worldview. I hold to a view that - you cannot beat something with nothing. This means - that presently despite the significant flaws I see in the Christian worldview, that no other worldview offers me a better alternative within the frameworks of the world I currently live. Christianity is the most consistent reflection of the world as I see it. And of course this begs another question - does my worldview colour the way I see the world or does the world colour the way I see the world? And the answer is - probably. I certainly stand within my culture much like everyone else does. It is not something we get to stand outside of particularly often - unless we travel to other worlds - whether that be physically, or virtually - or within the books of history or other books. I have traveled around the world and been to several developing nations with quite distinct and different worldviews to my own. I have met many beautiful and wonderful people in those cultures. So I am saying - I accept that my culture provides me with certain lens. Yet when I observe others from other cultures - with similar lens then this is helpful. Not persuasive but helpful.
This is why I say it is a loaded question.
This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right? How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?
The answer to this question is not too difficult. It comes down to how you understand or determine what is right and what is wrong. What is the measure of these things? And why?
Your disclaimer is not necessary - and actually is redundant and perhaps misleading. While it is true that proving others wrong does not ergo proves your to be correct, nor does it prove it wrong. In fact your disclaimer is rather insulting. It implies that religious people start with a particular premise - and that is in my view a bigoted view.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you agree that pedophilia is abominable and unconnected with homosexuality in any rational way it does make me wonder why you brought it up since it is not otherwise impactful to our discussion. I am not emotional by the way and this isn't a personal topic for me per se I am just not going to let you get away with pretending that allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they choose and allowing pedophiles to harm children are in any way related subjects. If you think homosexuality is in some way immoral you will have to support your claim without reference to pedophilia.
Don't try and make me say something I did not say.
I think pedophilia is abominable. I am not the one who says it is connected with homosexuality. You can read that in the leading sexual orientation reports - such as the Kinsey Report.
I explained why I raised it. It is a perfect example of how people let their emotions into the topic and are unable to separate it objectively. I don't know why you try and keep suggesting that I am conflating the two. My point is - sexual orientations if they exist ought to be analyzed objectively. I also further suggested that de-facto relationships come into play here. For the record, I don't have an issue of comparing ordinary heterosexuals married couple with pedophilia. It in no way suggests there is a link between the two. But that is because I am being objective and rational.
I think any sex outside of God ordained and ordered marriage is sinful. This includes pornography and masturbation. And therefore wrong.
I don't happen to think that just because two adults are consenting that this makes it ok. I don't agree with drugs either. So if two consenting adults consumed drugs behind closed doors - it would still be illegal even if no one else ever gets hurt. Or if two adults had a séance, I would state that it is wrong as well. But does this mean I think it should be illegal or that they are bad people? No that would be a dumb conclusion to draw, methinks. Similarly, despite my objection to homosexuality, I would not be one to advocate that it ought to be criminalized again. That too would be dumb.
But this is a rabbit hole - and one I did not want to go down.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Let's move onto other discussions on other topics.I am . I asked you two questions above. Did you miss them? Or was they simply too difficult for you to concoct a logical excuse around.You could always go to this thread and try out the questions you have totally ignored#37
Why is it that you have to taint everything you direct at me with "ridicule"?
I am happy to answer those questions. Start a new topic and I will do so in due course.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi and thanks for your comments.
I will take it under consideration.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So let's see. Which part of "I am not going to explore rabbit holes don't you understand"?
I asked a question. You answered it. Let's move onto other discussions on other topics.
And please stop calling me a coward. It is not true - and it hardly is likely to persuade me to answer.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Hi and thanks for those passages.
I still think that a judge must be above reproach in respect of his judgment. Otherwise - he will be seen as biased.
And although God might be at all times a father and at all times a teacher - it does not mean that this will mean that he will be unjust in his sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
he saved a remnant from its number of humans and animals etc and placed them into a boat. The story in its context is one of judgment and grace. And that totally makes sense.How was there enough space for:-All of the animals-All of their food for 40 days, which for the carnivores means more animals, which require more foodIn addition, how can Noah pick up the poop of all those animals? There are tens of thousands of them.The story makes no sense and I therefore don't think the bible is correct.
Hi again the underdog,
I agreed with you that a literal understanding of Noah's Ark was difficult for modern man to understand. This is why I said it needs to be understood contextually and with its purpose in mind.
Hence, asking the questions you are - is like asking for a literal understanding of every poem that has been written. I have read many poems about the Vietnam War - describing and picturing the horrors that abound about war. Yet, many of the pictures described obviously did not make sense but was filling out the story and exaggerating things to emphasis particular things. Should my conclusion therefore be - it does not make sense - so the Vietnam War did not happen?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
If you go back to my OP I never said God agreed with a whom.The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live. God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated.I said God agreed with the position that story of Genesis conveyed in respect of humanity,But Genesis, although it is said to be is "god inspired" wasn't written before the flood, was it?And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all things biblical?Firstly, this is not true.This thread - your thread - proves different doesn't it. You want to discuss things that the scriptures don't even mention. its in the title- your title:Author:Tradesecret,2 days ago. Does God demand that ONLY adult animals go onto the Ark?So you accept that neither the scriptures nor god does not mention "ONLY adult animals" but you want to discuss something not mentioned.I often discuss what the scriptures do say.So you have grasped the only reason that this religion forum exists.Why is that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or what biblical characters don't even say?I do not think that it is a preference of mine at all.Not true.I prefer to discuss the bible and to read it in its context.Well this thread alone shows that to be false doesn't it. Where does it clearly state that god commanded that ONLY INFANT animals enter into the ark? It doesn't does it? But here you are, attempting to make a point and build an argument around something the scriptures do not even state.Is asking question about what isn't even written in scripture or words not spoken said by Jesus , his disciples or written by the biblical authors, discussing the bible "in context"?
Given that your responses are obviously all tongue in cheek, i don't see what needs to be replied to.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Couple of things in this paragraph. First, what if you knew that your kids would not only make you angry, but in fact they WOULD make you angry enough where you literally wanted to kill them. Like before they were born, you found out without any question that they'd be virulent racists who would go on hate-fueled killing sprees, and your name would be all over the news as their dad. They'd eventually be hated throughout the world, like Hitler level, eventually caught, humiliated, tried, and punished brutally with a long term of the most severe torture imaginable, with no chance of escape or redemption, by whatever court gets them. WITHOUT question this would happen, not "have the capacity to let you down." Sucks, right? Now, what if I told you before the kid was born there was a simple something you could do to absolutely avoid this course of action. It costs you nothing, it costs the child nothing, it costs the mother nothing , it's easy to do, in fact, it's just three magic words and bang, none of that happens. Would you take the three magic word solution? Or would you say "nah, I still think it won't happen even though there is literally no other possibility." I presume, as you are not a monster, you take the three magic words, have happy children who don't become racists and ruin so many other lives, right? If the choice is clear to you, then you're smarter than the god in the bible. If the choice ISN'T clear, and you had a chance to solve the problem, but chose NOT to, how do you not bear responsibility to the mourning families of those your child slaughtered? Again, it wasn't a question that they'd do it. And you had a clear solution. No, you didn't kill those other people, but I'm sorry, you absolutely bear responsibility. This is the choice god makes in the book: he knows what's going to happen, he had a hundred painless ways to fix it, or more, and chose, instead, to let the two people transgress AND to let himself get som mad about his ineptitude that he decided to drown the entire planet. YES, IT DENIES HIS PERFECTION, that's the problem you're trying to avoid, but cannot.
I still don't agree it is just to condemn someone for something they have not done yet - even if it inevitable that they will do it. And all of your maneuvering around to justify it is wordplay. Three magic words - are you you serious? It is like you have no clue about the seriousness nature of sin. What your scenario still leaves out is the justice of God. I have said it before and I will say it again, God is not a magician. The Bible never claims that God is a magician. He does not work by smoke and mirrors which is what magic is really about. What you fail to realise is that the only way to deal with sin is by death. So whether sin actually takes place or others are judged because of some inevitable future sin, it still has to be dealt with by death. I suggest to you that even the order we have in our scientific world is one that reflects God's image.
I think the notion that God just says the word and evil people just never exist is a fantasy. And that thought really only has one motive - to deny one's own responsibility before God. What you have said - is an attempt to deny his perfection - but it does not even raise an eyebrow for me. It is an abomination God says, to condemn an innocent man.
And apparently it's okay for god to condemn someone before they've done anything...ever heard of original sin?
Respectfully, you just demonstrate you do not understand original sin. Original sin - is sin as opposed to sins. Sin is the collective sin of treason against God. Sins are personal individual sins. Go and learn what it is talking about and then come back.
Hence, this doctrine teaches that without GOD, nothing happens. Yet it also provides a break in responsibility between the creator and the creature.Yes, but not through rationale or logic, just by handwaving. It's exceptionally simple to grasp: if you have a plan for every molecule in existence, and you are never surprised, and you have all knowledge of all time before you and all power to change whatever the outcome is to something you like, then you are, in fact, ultimately responsible for everything that happens, indeed you have CHOSEN for things to happen as they do. Man is not responsible for anything at all under the all-omni-god paradigm. What you're doing is akin to blaming sulfuric acid and water for a violent reaction when mixed, when in fact the scientist mixing them is at fault: he knows what's going to happen every time, yet he chooses to do it anyway.
Well actually it is not hand waving. It is the same logic that governments around the world use to justify taxes. And similarly to stop people refusing to pay taxes for services they dislike. Tax payers pay tax into a consolidated tax account. Governments then use this tax to pay for different services in the community - some of these services which pay for abortions and others which pay for defence forces. Whenever a tax payer says to the government - I refuse to pay taxes to support murder - meaning abortion - the courts say - well you are not doing that. You see the - courts distinguish between first and second causes. It is actually part and parcel of our legal system and of the way we do things. You can dismiss it all you like. But you would be wrong.
In Christian circles we talk of God's will and we talk of God's will. And we mean different things. God has an hidden will. We cannot fathom this hidden will. It is what is done in accordance with his plans and his providential plan. It is what goes on behind the scenes and brings all things to pass - because without the plan of God nothing happens which does happen. All these things including sin and the death of Jesus are included within this hidden will. While we don't what it is - we do know that he is good and he is just and holy in what he does and its purpose is to bring all of creation together - reconciled with himself. We also talk of his revealed will. That is the revealed plans of God in accordance of how he wills us to live. We find this in the bible. Hence when we talk of obeying God's will - we mean his revealed will. When we say - if it God's will this will happen - it is talking about his hidden will. As I said above - it is not something I would normally discuss with a non-believer for the simple reason that it makes no sense to you and will be seen as some sort of excuse.
But it does provide us with a working faith. A faith that reveals that God is the one who providentially brings all things to pass - but also is not the author of sin. I don't particularly care whether you agree with it or not. It is logical and it makes sense. Yet it relies upon particular premises which I understand you find ridiculous. Similarly you work with premises I find ridiculous - such as condemning people to non-existence before they even have the capacity to commit sin. I find that unfair and unjust and in my eyes plain evil.
God won't condemn you just because he knows you might turn into Adolph Hitler -even though we as humans might wish that he had never been born. It would be unjust to kill him or his mother before he became this monster.This is where you're off: to god it's not "might become." It's DOES become. Immutably. And you wouldn't have to kill Hitler before he became a monster. You simply have to correct whatever it was in the programming to MAKE him become that monster. Because god, according to your narrative, chose to make him into Hitler. Unless you're saying god doesn't know what's going to happen when Hitler's born, but I think you believe (a) god knows everything that will ever happen, because you say it in this post and (b) he is the cause of all things. Nothing happens without god, right?
Again - you make the mistake of condemning innocent people because of something they might do in the future. Yes, you use the cute language of saying that GOD KNOWS what will happen. But you cannot even see the contradiction in your own language. If God knows they will do something - and then condemns them before they actually do this crime - for what were they punished? IF they never commit the crime, they never commit the crime and even an all knowing God would know that they have never actually committed the crime and therefore unfairly and unjustly punished them. It is wrong. You are asking God to become unfair and unjust in his judgement to satisfy your own responsibility.
Yes I have distinguished between first and second causes.
But who is bigger than God? Who has authority over him? Which court is he bound to obey?If god does something, then, it is automatically moral for all time, because there's no one to hold him accountable? Weird justification there.
Well can you think of a different alternative? Please enlighten us all.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Are you really saying you don't know that a recent topic I started was closed down?
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Where is the teacher part coming in ?You said people are "God's creation" and he has the right to judge and to punish them. He cannot judge them unless he has first laid out the rules (taught them the rules they must obey or he will kill them in a flood). So the court "judge" in your example was a stand in for God. The 100 people on trial were a stand in for every living soul on Earth before the flood. And the 10 people the judge didn't find guilty were a stand in for Noah and his family. So instead of Creator and Judge, I used Father and Teacher.In my example, the teacher threw out the question if 50% of the class missed it on a test. He maintained that if over half the class missed it, he had failed as a teacher. If your "court judge" had to find 90 out of 100 of his own children guilty of a serious crime (one that necessitated death), then I would say as a "Father" and "Teacher" (much as a "Creator" and "Judge"), he had (and has) seriously failed his children.
Absolutely I said that. Read the first couple of chapters of Genesis and you will see the one rule he made. After that - humanity was kicked out of God's family. So I feel your link to him having fatherly responsibilities is an overreach. Humanity rejected God. They did not want to be part of his family. Humanity well before the flood was living on borrowed time. They were - indeed as humanity to the largest extent is now - on death row awaiting execution. God at the time of the flood - simply brought down the axe.
God found grace in the eyes of the Lord. If you understand the term grace - you will understand it is a undeserved gift - and mercy means not getting what you do deserve. Hence Noah also deserved death by God for his own reasons decided to let him and his family survive the deluge and to be the new father of the new world.
I think that the teacher is unhelpful. I don't see God as a teacher in the sense of a classroom. While it is true that Adam was on probation during his time in the Garden, and to it seems that of those students 100% failed - I see this not as the result of the teacher. In fact that suggestion simply makes a mockery of the entire bible. And it makes a mockery of Jesus own death and resurrection from the grave.
A judge need to remain objective in his judgment. If it turned out that the judge was also the father of the defendant - the judge would need to recuse himself - as a conflict of interest. Justice demands that to be the case. Justice is blind - not that it is ignorant of truth - but that it sees all defendants the same.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The problem Stephen is that I don't trust you. I think you have an ulterior motive for wanting me to post to that link. You know where it is. It is a topic which is now closed. Is there any reason why you don't post it - since you know very well where it is and who posted it?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has said "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested".Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim.
Why would I make it up? As for someone not being so familiar with the scriptures, lol, that is ironic.
I am sure you are capable of looking up who might have asked this question.
Is there a reason you are not addressing the question.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Where is the teacher part coming in ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
That's actually a pretty good answer. I tip my hat to thee.I guess it's still hard to wrap the mind around John's doubt, after passages like:The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
Again I hear you.
Like I said, sometimes our circumstances just make us doubt. I am talking to a guy who loves his wife and would give his life up for her. He had no doubt - about this at all - and then she cheats on him. It changed everything he thought he knew. John may well have known all these things about Jesus - at least theoretically, but I doubt that he was thinking of Jesus dying on a cross. Jesus told his disciples many times he was going to die - but they did not believe him. And this was despite the fact that they saw him doing miracles etc. Think of Peter, why would someone who could call Jesus - the Christ in one moment - then deny him in the next? Fear. Circumstances. Doubt arising because of what you see is not matching with what you think. This is life. Life is messy. It is hard. And I don't think the bible tries to hide this fact. It in my view gives it authenticity and credibility. It is not saying life is easy and that you will never have problems. But it is saying, you don't need to do it alone. And there is a God who cares for you.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
(1 Samuel) 15:33 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”So while your chosen verse only indicates what maybe god will cause to happen, (1 Samuel) 15:3 looks like and reads like a direct command FROM GOD to kill "children and infants," to me. what about you?We won't go into the sanctioning by god the murder of Jobs children where God boasts to Satan about Job's goodness, but Satan argues that Job is only good because God has blessed him abundantly. Satan challenges God that, if given permission to punish the man, Job will turn and curse God. Job 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power", and all ten children end up dead .Or will we mentionPsalm 137:9 "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for those verses. But let us keep to the topic at hand. Do you take the view that Hosea 13:16 is an example of God commanding babies and women to be killed or ripped open? I actually intend to get to those other verses - but one passage at a time please. And those other verses I will address in new topics.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Two really important things here provide an answer for us. God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them.This doesn't really answer your question, but it is food for thought.One of my professors in college had a policy concerning test questions. Many teachers have the same policy. If at least 50% of the class got a question wrong, it was thrown out. The professor explained that it was his job to "make us" into people proficient in the subject at hand (say Philosophy 101). if half the class missed the question, then "HE" was the problem, not the "STUDENT". If only a few people missed the question, then he "passed judgement" in the form of a grade.This is ham-handed I know, but if your question is about God's right to wipe out his creation, then he needs to take responsibility for so MUCH of his class completely failing the course!
Hi and thanks for your thoughts. Sorry which question did I not answer.
I see your point with respect of your teachers. Funny, in Australia it would not be the teachers fault if 50% fail. They will blame the curriculum or the government or the students. I cannot ever think of one teacher who would blame himself - even if it were his fault.
Nevertheless, I think that analogy does not fit with Noah's Ark. Firstly, it was not a test. God was not testing humanity. I wonder what you would think of a court room scene where the judge heard 100 cases brought by the police? And in 90% of those cases the judge found them guilty and sentenced them. Would the fact that 90% of those people being found guilty be a reflection of the judge failing?
In other words, I think the court room scene is a much more apt picture than a school room testing scenario. I think that God like the judge has to be responsible for what he is doing - not for the actions of the crooks. If a judge let people go - others in the community would scream injustice at the judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It always seemed weird to me that after John baptizes Jesus, and the heavens open and God speaks out that Jesus is his son, John then later sends out messengers to ask Jesus if he's the messiah. Did John not see the heavens open or hear God's voice? That sounds like it should be pretty convincing.In the same way, it also strikes me as weird that John would send out those same messengers if he knew he had anointed Christ as the messiah king. Why do you think he did that?
It is a good question. But I think both questions are answered in a similar way. People, including John the Baptist can be convinced of something at one stage and then not far removed, especially when they are in prison, or depressed, can question everything they believe.
Think of the Israelites in the desert wandering for 40 years. They had witnessed God deliver them from Egypt with mighty miracles - they had seen the Red Sea become walls and rain down on the Egyptians. They had witnessed Moses' face shine with the glory of being in God's presence - and yet they still grumbled about water and food and that they would starve.
And think about Jesus' disciples - they saw him heal people - they saw him feed 5 thousand people and then they worried about there not being enough food a couple of days later.
Were they dumb? Did they not get it? Do people in our life time learn the lessons from history? Do children need to be reminded over and over again not to do certain things? We know it is wrong to lie - but most of us do. Why? We know it is wrong to steal but we will justify why we don't need to pay our taxes.
I see people experience the wonders of God and then start doubting - and then come back to church and then leave. People are fickle. People forget things in the heat of the moment or when tough times come.
In John's case - knowing Jesus is the messiah, even annointing him as such, does not mean that you understand what his role was going to be. I think most of the people in Jesus' time - disciples included, had no idea that the messiah was coming to save people from the wrath of God by dealing with their sin. Most people would have got caught up in the idea that the messiah was coming to save their people from the Romans. I suspect John would have got caught up with "fake news" as well. HE was human, not perfect, subject to wanting God to pour out his wrath on the enemies of God. So when Jesus as the annointed messiah did not take this path - John questioned himself - especially now he was in prison - why was Jesus not taking it up to the Romans? Why was he not declaring himself the King of Israel as the heir of David?
This is why Jesus told John's disciples to go back and tell him what he was doing? Jesus was reminding John the purpose of the messiah was quite different to what the people of Israel and even John was expecting. I hope this answers your question - if it does not please tell me what more you would like to know.
Just to clarify my response and answer. John's doubts arose because he, like many people of that time, and perhaps many people of our time, had a distorted picture of what the messiah was coming to do. Jesus was not coming to save them from the Romans, but to save them from the wrath of God. Jesus' response to John demonstrated he was doing exactly as the prophets said he would do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Noah's ark makes no sense. My contentions with Noah's ark are:1) Noah's ark takes up less space than the titanic, yet holds 4x the passenger count. The titanic was built by many people with great technology. Noah was the sole builder of the ark and he did not have access to the same amount of technology. He probably did not have enough time even in his long life to build the ark.2) In the Titanic, all the passengers used the bathroom. All the animals on the other hand, pooped on the floor. Noah would have to pick up the poop of tens of thousands of animals. He did not have enough time to get this done and he and his crew would have been overrun with poop picking up all on their own.3) Noah and his crew would have to pick up the poop of tens of thousands of animals every single day, probably twice a day or so all in the dark. Electricity was not invented back then, and there was no light getting into the ark except from maybe a window even though window were invented after the flood supposedly happened.It is because of this that I'm now an atheist.Thoughts on this?
Hi there TheUnderdog,
thanks for OP.
I disagree with your view that Noah's Ark makes no sense. Your contentions do not mean the story makes no sense - just that a literal understanding that Noah's Ark as a boat compared with the Titanic seems hard to comprehend to the modern viewer. And that I am not going to disagree with you.
Yet, the story of Noah's Ark does make sense in the context. God made a world. The world stuck its fist up at God. God tolerated this for a while - and then when he could not anymore - he judged it. And because he had made the world and he had made plans for it - he saved a remnant from its number of humans and animals etc and placed them into a boat. The story in its context is one of judgment and grace. And that totally makes sense.
I am afraid I do not understand what the connection between you not understanding the story of Noah's Ark and you being an atheist. That seems to be a large run hop and jump. That to me does not make sense. Noah's ark makes some sense - your jump to atheism from not comprehending it makes less sense.
But thanks for your OP.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
I think that is a great question. I don't know the answer. I can only speculate. I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity. After all, he did not destroy it completely. He could have done that as well. For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again.
Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous. Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so. A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.
A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.
The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus. And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things.
Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh, okay, then I disagree with you on this charcter being loving and just and all that crap.
Fine. You have freedom to think that.
This is an all powerful character who's supposedly all knowing being "sorry" he made them would indicate clear regret. Surely if his knowledge was all encompassing, he'd have seen this problem coming and decided to either skip making people all together, or make them differently, so as to not have to drown the whole thing.
Why is this so? I knew that before I had kids they would do things that would make me angry. They would let me down. Perhaps even things that might make me want to throw them out of the family. I certainly was not foolish enough to think that they would be perfect and would never have the capacity to kill or murder or even rape. But I still had them. And I would do it again even if I knew for sure that they would do this. I don't accept the argument that since God knew what would happen, then he ought to have done something differently. In the first place, it actually denies his holiness and perfection. It also actually makes people guilty before they are guilty. We cannot condemn someone before they have done it.
The other flaw in doctrine in relation to that particular aspect is not one I would typically discuss with non-believers but it goes to the distinction between first and second causes. This particular doctrine enables believers to understand that God plans all things and brings it to pass according to his good and perfect will. It states that nothing happens without God planning it in the first place. But it also provides man with his own responsibility for his actions. Hence, this doctrine teaches that without GOD, nothing happens. Yet it also provides a break in responsibility between the creator and the creature.
If he were truly all knowing, then, this situation wouldn't have arisen unless he wanted it to (which makes him a sadist, far from loving and just).
Sorry, i don't agree. I am of the view that God is just. This means he won't condemn any without a lawful reason. And just because he knows the future does not change this aspect of his justice. People are not condemned because of future sins. God won't condemn you just because he knows you might turn into Adolph Hitler -even though we as humans might wish that he had never been born. It would be unjust to kill him or his mother before he became this monster.
If he were truly all powerful, why not just change whatever he didn't like in the humans? Was that beyond his ability?
The flaw in your argument assumes that there was a flaw. Truly God could have created human beings without a free will. He could have made them all robots. Is that what you would prefer? The flaw is not the person. The flaw is not the environment. Neither the genetics or the environment can be blamed. It was the fact that God gave them liberty which I say is a very good thing. Yet - it was something that despite its very goodness was able to do very good things or be used for evil. Humanity chose to exploit his own freedom. I don't think free will was a flaw. Trying to find a flaw I think is our way of trying to excuse ourselves for our own evilness.
Then he's not all powerful...if it's within his power an dhe chose basically a near extinction event over rewriting the program, he's a cruel dick, because those babies that drown didn't do anything to him. I'm also not sure I agree with 'creating something igves you the authority to destroy it.' My wife and I created our children, and we don't have the authority to kil l them.
You did not create your own children. LOL @ that thought. And even our law says you don't own your children, any more than you own yourself.
The argument about God making the world gives him the right to destroy it. You admit you have the authority to kill your children? Why not? Someone is bigger than you and has authority to stop you from doing it. Well lawfully anyway. But you could kill them.
But who is bigger than God? Who has authority over him? Which court is he bound to obey?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,Let us see when and who has suggested that god drowned "the entire Jewish nation"?
No. This does not address or answer the question or the topic.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment.Alternatively, you can dismiss it by acknowledging there is literally no evidence that this story, any one part if it, is in any way factual, and that there's still no evidence that the character in question even exists, right? That seems to be an easier option.
But you see dear Ludo,
I am not arguing that the story is literal. I never have. People make many assumptions - sometimes I run with a discussion to see where it goes. But I have never once argued - at least here on this forum in the recent past that it needs to be taken literally.
My particular intention with these questions and responses is to demonstrate that the character of God as described in the Bible is not vile or cruel or evil. But rather is one who is good and just and perfect in what he does.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you denying you were attempting to ridicule me as opposed to my argument? When you asked the question "are you seriously ...?" It certainly seems personal.But I am prepared to accept the benefit of the doubt in this instance.Take it however you like. If you were equating consensual sex between adults with molestation of children any argument to that effect deserves to be ridiculed and if you honestly believe that they are equally abominable behaviors I don't really care if I offended you pointing it out. Furthermore I am not prepared to continue this discussion until we have resolved the difference between the two and exactly why that is an unacceptable attitude.
You may think you are not taking this personally but your words sure say otherwise.
For the record and I thought I had made it clear - I do see a difference between what adults do consensually and what is seen to be molestation of children. So stop getting yuor knickers in a knot about that. Try and be objective - rational.
You suggested homosexuality is simply one's sexual orientation.
Pedophilia is also considered a sexual orientation. As too is heterosexuality's. And some might even suggest that bestiality is as well.
Objectively, each sexual orientation ought to be compared and contrasted. Why would you rationally think that they should not compared and contrasted?
This is why I think it is personal for you. An objective person would be able to divorce their emotions from this contrast.
Oh and yes just to make it clear for the record I am not saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are two equal abominations.
As far as I can see the only unacceptable reason for not objectively contrasting and comparing ALL sexual orientations is emotion and personal reasons. And yeah I suppose - politics. Never forget politics. As I said above - the world has changed. Once upon a time we could discuss these things rationally. Now it has changed.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am addressing questions which some believe need to be answered.Then try addressing these questions I asked above, that I believe you should answer:The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live. God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated."God agreed" With whom?And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all things biblical?Why is that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or what biblical characters don't even say?
Before I do answer your questions, which incidentally I intend to do, let me make it quite clear that I started this topic to deal with a specific question. You have answered that and I thank you for doing is so succinctly. I explained to secular merlin that I have no intention that this topic gets taken down a rabbit hole. It is my view that these questions of yours - though relevant to you, are both of the type to take this down rabbit holes and away from the main task of this topic.
SO what I propose to do is this: answer them in short here and if you are not satisfied with my answers then start a new topic directly with these questions.
What I am not going to do is extend it further than that here because as far as I am concerned - you have answered my question succinctly and any further questions by you obviously have a different purpose.
You ask whom did God agree with?
If you go back to my OP I never said God agreed with a whom. I said God agreed with the position that story of Genesis conveyed in respect of humanity, that they had become so evil they did not deserve to live. And my point was not that God and the story of Genesis sat down and had a talk and agreed. It is similar to me saying I agree with the fact that pedophiles are evil and should be castrated. It is different from me by the fact that I don't have the power or authority or the jurisdiction to carry out such a view.
And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all things biblical?
Firstly, this is not true. I often discuss what the scriptures do say. And there are many such responses by me on this forum. This is a topic in relation to a question posed to me and so I posed it back and then answered it.
Why is that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or what biblical characters don't even say?
I do not think that it is a preference of mine at all. I prefer to discuss the bible and to read it in its context. There are times of course when some people ask questions that require a discussion about things other than in the direct passages. Are you suggesting that others can discuss these things and I should be be censored?
Created:
Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation, including zygotes and babies in his great Flood Scenario according to Genesis 7.
I would suggest that this statement is absurdly put. In the first place the Jewish nation did not come into existence until hundreds of years after Noah's Flood. Jacob who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, was the first one called Israel. It was not until many years later that the Israelite nations were known as Jews. Whoever were killed at the time of the great flood, it was not the Hebrew Creation.
But leaving that silly statement aside for one moment, for the sake of the sake of the argument, let us assume for a moment that Noah was a Jew. Did God kill the entire Jewish creation? And the answer again must be no.
The story of Noah's Ark is a picture of salvation for 8 persons and thousands of animals. To say the Entire Jewish Creation was horribly drowned is therefore an over reach.
But again let us leave even this picture of salvation aside - for the sake of the argument, let us ask the question whether there were zygotes and babies who drowned during the flood?
And the answer is most likely yes. Did they drown horribly? It certainly is very likely.
So if Noah's flood occurred, literally, and it covered the entire earth, and only 8 people and thousands of animals survived, is it likely that many people - perhaps millions drowned horribly? And my answer would be yes it is very likely. I am sure some would have died by other means - but most would have drowned and I cannot imagine drowning to be a fun affair? Would the zgotes have drowned? I can't say. Most likely their mother's drowned and they lost the ability to keep breathing. It really does not matter how it is spun, the fact is - it would have been horrible - nasty. Incredibly brutal and cruel. There is no getting around this.
The next question that arises is did God do it? Did God drown them? And the answer is yes. God did.
So does this make God a murderer? Does this make what God did wrong?
And I would say no. Murder is a technical term. It is distinguished from killing. It is distinguished from self defence. It is distinguished from lawful punishment.
No one is saying God came down from heaven and literally forced people's heads into the water.
The question really comes down to whether it was lawful for God to put all of these people to death. And the answer is found in Genesis 6:6-7.
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously." So the Lord said I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, man, animals and creeping things, birds of the air - for I am sorry that I have made them".
Two really important things here provide an answer for us. God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them.
If he had not made them, he may not have had lawful grounds to destroy them. But they were his possessions and he has the legal right over them to destroy them. Secondly, they were evil- continuously. This was his reason for destroying them. It is not like God looked down at the earth and thought - how lovely they are - all doing the right thing and being so nice - and so I will therefore kill them.
No, God destroyed the creation as it was then known on the basis of the fact that it was evil to its heart - and also on the basis that he had jurisdiction to do so because he had made the earth and all in it.
I will aside the other technical issue of murder being something that only humans are able to do anyway. But the point is - God's actions on that day were lawful. Some might say - well even if they were lawful, it was cruel and unusual punishment. And my response to that is - all forms of capital punishment are according to some - cruel and unusual.
The evil being committed by the people at that time was monsterous and evil. Imagine an entire nation of pedaphiles. And only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Now I accept some will reject my reasoning for why I say God's act was lawful. I have provided my justifications for it. God saw their hearts and knew they evil. And secondly, he made them, giving him total jurisdiction.
To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
I am addressing questions which some believe need to be answered.
I am not of the view that I have been caught on the back-foot. But thanks for answering the question.
And for answering it so succinctly.
Created:
It has been suggested that God, even Jesus, commanded babies to be smashed to pieces and their woman ripped open. And the verse used to support this suggestion is Hosea 13:16
Which says:
"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones dashed in pieces, and their pregnant woman ripped open". (ESV)
The question which needs to be explored is this verse evidence that God commanded babies to be smashed and woman ripped open?" And the answer is no.
Is there a command within this verse? No. This is a verse in a context of a book by the OT prophet Hosea. Hosea, like most of the OT prophets spoke by way of prophecies, and his language was one like a lawsuit by a complainant, God against the defendant, Israel. In these lawsuits, the prophet would outline the charges and then outline the judgment that would come upon them - should the defendant not repent of their sins.
In this particular verse, Hosea describes a punishment for the people of Samaria because of their rebellion against God. At the time, Samaria, like any other defendant has the right to confess their sins and throw themselves on the mercy of God. What is interesting is it is not a commandment by God. In fact it is merely a warning. A warning of what will occur should they not repent. God is putting Samaria on NOTICE - if you keep doing what you are doing, you will be harmed.
Samaria of course did not want God's help. Nor would they have asked God for help. They wanted to keep doing what they were doing - rebelling against God. And God despite their rebellion against him, still was warning them to come back to him. To repent of their sins - and to trust him. But they did not do this. They just became more and more rebellious - and turned their backs further and further away from God. Rejecting him completely- - they did not want his assistance and they thought that they did not need his help.
When people do not want God's help, in fact if they insist that they hate God for all sorts of reasons, he is cruel they say and evil, is there any obligation on his part to assist them? If he did help them, would they be grateful or would this cause them to be even more resentful.
In this scenario - just like other acts of judgment - God simply let them keep going - and doing what they wanted to do. He took his hand of protection away from them. They did not want it anyway. He simply gave them what they wanted. So when armies - who go about conquering the world, like Babylon, Assyria, Greece, Egypt, etc come marching in too take over and abuse - and exploit - nations which by the way are not under the same obligations as Israel was under the law, then it stands to reason they will be devastated and destroyed. These horrible acts outlined by Hosea of what would happen to Samaria would have been prohibited if this was Israel attacking these people. Hence it is quite reasonable to assume that it was the enemies of God - with their own evil practices who would come in and lay siege to Samaria and kill the babies and pregnant woman.
Evil pagan - non Godly nations seeking power and riches from poor nations. God in this prophecy was warning Samaria of the evil that comes from rebelling against him. The recklessness of not wanting God to help or assist them. They would reap what they had sown.
So it is absolutely incorrect to suggest that God or Jesus commanded anyone to be ripped open and slaughtered. This verse actually reveals the reverse of that lie. God warned them - but they just told him to Piss off. And so he left them to defend themselves according to their wishes and desires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Different claims would require different levels of evidence. That some human was guilty of wrongdoing is not going to require the same evidence to convince me as some supernatural claim because I know humans exist and that they are sometimes guilty of wrongdoing. You don't have to first demonstrate that humans and wrongdoing are even non fictitious. The more extraordinary a claim the less believable it just be considered.
I agree with your first sentence and that is my point. Yet you just jump to an illogical test in respect of attempting to prove the divine exists. What is the point of seeking a level of evidence you know is incompatible with the very subject you are wanting to test? It looks to me like you really don't want an answer.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well now you say you don't care. Five minutes ago you were attempting to ridicule me for what you say you don't care about. LOL@ inconsistency.Please stop conflating criticism of your argument with criticism of you.
Are you denying you were attempting to ridicule me as opposed to my argument? When you asked the question "are you seriously ...?" It certainly seems personal.
But I am prepared to accept the benefit of the doubt in this instance.
We were actually discussing the distinction between someone's belief and their person.A person's sexual orientation is not a belief or a choice it is part of who they are as a person and provided they are not causing harm that is sufficient to justify obstructing th wer ir liberties thror liberties should not be impinged. Comparing pedophilia with consenting sex between adults is muddying the waters at best and ad hominem attack at worst. You are confirming the consequence.
Yes, so you say. Of course there is NO scientific evidence to support that position. And this is part of the issue isn't? And it forms part and parcel of the change in thinking in our culture. People want to identify in a particular way because they feel they are that way. Interestingly, there is probably religious evidence to support so called sexual orientation. But as far as scientific evidence goes - there is none. Well none that have demonstrated a biological cause. Of course I am happy for you to produce studies that show otherwise. So far they have not found a GAY gene. There was a study a few years ago which tried to suggest there was - but this was dismissed pretty quickly when they discovered the test subjects had all died from AIDS - and it was AIDS itself which had caused the change in biological makeup.
Reputable Studies which are peer reviewed and accepted within the particular community.
Most of the information we obtain is anecdotal - mostly we are told just to believe it is true.
I have already explained my position in relation to pedophilia. I did not muddy the waters. You just saw it as a personal attack - proving my case that you are unable to distinguish between the argument and the person.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Just saying it - does not make it so. If we applied that test to the big bang fairy tale I suggest it would also fall fatally to logic. It after all is not subject to testability, It is not repeatable - it is unable to be put under a microscope. We are told it is true - and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the people in the world would be unable to explain it satisfactorily - such that simple logic would call it into question.Um . . . it depends on what you are calling the "Big Bang". There was no "bang" if you mean sound, since sound is a vibration propagated through air -- and needs a receiver (an ear) to hear it. There was no bang because there was no air yet and certainly no ear.But if you mean the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) which is the "relic" radiation left behind from the "sudden" appearance of energy that spans every corner of the universe ---- then YES IT CAN AND HAS BEEN "EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY" as well as scientifically. We have detected (and functionally utilized) microwaves FROM the "big bang's" CMB for years. It is not a story. It is a factual reality.The Big Bang is a bad example if you are comparing it to Noah's Ark, which is merely a story and may or may not be true. What cannot be proven about the Big Bang, however, is how or why it happened in the first place. But the fact that it happened is not in dispute, even if it is not perfectly named.
Interesting stuff. I will have to think about this some more before I respond. You seem to make some pertinent points. Thanks.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't care what you think is sinful. I'm discussing morality and homosexuality is not noticeably more harmful than heterosexuality. Pedophilia is harmful. That is the difference.
Well now you say you don't care. Five minutes ago you were attempting to ridicule me for what you say you don't care about. LOL@ inconsistency.
We were actually discussing the distinction between someone's belief and their person. You said if you attacked their belief - it was not attacking their person. I did not disagree with you but noted that the world had changed so much so that people cannot distinguish the two. You perfectly modelled that for us. Thanks.
I never said homosexuality was more noticeably harmful that heterosexuality. In fact I don't even think that is something I would consider to be true. I do take the view that it would be preferable for children to have both a mother and a father. I do take the view that one of the major causes of poverty in the world is a lack of a balanced gender environment in the home. And I think the studies bear that out. Nevertheless, by itself - I don't think one orientation is better or worse than the other. I see a lot of non-gay relationships which cause significant harm in the house.
But your difference does not change my point. In fact mostly you have confirmed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Gee I don't know - what about the ordinary sense of witness testimony or the way historians check their material or the way courts come to a finding truth.
The scientific method is useful for a very small amount of fact finding in the world. Economists - study numbers and variables all of the time. Yet they rely much on intuition and their own theories in the first place.
Lawyers - use logic and reasoning - deduction and induction - but not like a scientist sitting in a room studying under a microscope. Archeologists - and historians - study books - and form conclusions from all sorts of places -
There are lots of way of coming to the truth about things. Are you a parent? Do you have kids? When they have a fight? Do you arrive at the truth by scientific method or do you use your own experience as a means to understanding what might go on.
Child Protection Services - arrive at what they think is the truth by relying on their interpretation of past events - in order to predict future events.
And very often their track record - as a scientific method - fails over and over again.
If you were to use the same expectations you have for those you want to prove to God, to do everything else in your life - you would never get anywhere? Is it true I should get out of bed in the morning? Let me test that first? Repeatable, observable - ??? What should I have for breakfast? What is the scientific test I will conduct before I make that decision. Or perhaps I might trust my mum. Or what should I wear today? Or what school should I go to? Or what career path? Or who I marry? Gee imagine if every person conducted a scientific test before they married anyone?
How do people research things? Everyone does it differently. Even scientists - conducting similar experiments do things differently. If I was in Bangladesh or if I was in Europe the way I went about doing things in my research - would be different. This is life - life is varied and complex. We cannot possibly conduct scientific experiments on everything - or indeed on much at all. It is impractical and I think mostly it is an excuse used by skeptics not as a desire for truth.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Pedophilia is an act that forever scars children. A crime and an unconscionable act.Homosexuality between consenting adults is not.You do not have a valid point. One is objectively harmful to humans and by extension society one is in your opinion "sinful".
It still sounds like it is personal to you.
I take the view that all so called sexual orientations can be compared and contrasted. I take the view that every sexual orientation outside of marriage as God designed it is sinful. This includes heterosexuals sex between consenting adults. For me it is not personal.
I totally reject pedophilia. And I suggest all people should. Yet I don't call for it be ridiculed. It ought to be prohibited and those who commit the offence - ought to be subject to the death penalty. Yet it should not be ridiculed.
I reject your position that I do not have a valid point. I said - labelling someone's sexual orientation as sinful is not ridiculing it. I used pedophilia as an example - specifically to note that as detestable and evil as it is - calling it sinful is not meant to ridicule it. I won't ridicule pedophiles - despite the fact that I reject absolutely everything about them . And if this is the case with one of the things I most despise - then other things I call sinful clearly are not meant to ridicule them. I could have used de-facto couples - of consenting adults who are not married - to make my point about ridicule. But it would not have made the same point because most people don't see people "living in sin" as sinful.
The point stands. Calling a sexual orientation sinful is not subjecting it to ridicule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Dismiss it if you like. But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting.(IF) whatever god(s) you are suggesting cannot be investigated (THEN) any statements made about whatever god(s) you are suggesting becomes necessarily an argument from ignorance.
LOL@ you. I am not suggesting that people should not attempt to explore god or gods or whatever - I am suggesting that you cannot put God under a microscope. Big difference.
There are more ways to discover and explore things than from a scientific methodology - especially one which implicitly denies God's existence within its premises.
Labeling it as ignorant to not use the scientific method lifts the scientific method from the realm of reality into a supernatural realm. It is as laughable as it is contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Another subjective statement by you. I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences..and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God.You have constructed an unfalsifiable premise. Such premises deserve to be dismissed out of hand.
Dismiss it if you like. But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you seriously comparing homosexual behavior between consenting adults with paedophilia?
See what I mean. You have extrapolated from an argument to being personal.
I actually don't have a problem of comparing sexual orientations. For me it is not personal. And it is not an attack. You suggest you can separate the two - but here you obviously cannot.
I think every sexual orientation can be compared and contrasted. Do you have an issue with that position or it is personal for you?
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
When the story of Noah is removed from the context of judgment and salvation it changes its meaning completely. So when people attempt to poke holes in the story to make it seem ridiculous, all that really achieves is to make the context a bit of a joke. And I suspect that probably is part of the agenda of those who do so. After all, if we can poke holes in a so called infallible word from a so called God, he can't be very infallible, can he? And certainly no one to be worried about. I can probably count on one hand the amount of people who try to poke holes in this story in an attempt to find the truth. It really is more about proving how stupid other people are and ergo how clever we are.The story doesn't have to be literal to have meaning. Even when I was a Christian (as a child), I did not think of Noah's Ark as literal. There are a thousand interpretations both religious and non-religious. I believe in stories. I believe they all have significance because they come from us; and biblical stories come from people who really believed in these stories. But that doesn't make them literal. I also believe in the stories of the Greek Gods. They teach us quite a bit about pettiness and ego. But I do not believe they are literal.
Hi lady3keys. I never said the story had to be literal to have meaning. I said when we remove it from its context - we change its meaning. Just because there are lots of different makes of cars, does not mean there was not a real and original car in the first place. A copy cat - or copy generally means it had an original. When the author wrote the story of Noah, he or she has a specific meaning. I think that is the one which is important to know. I don't care about your interpretation or mine for that matter. What is important is to understand the context - and to use that as a means of determining as best we can what he was trying to convey.
. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that personI'm not making fun of religion. I understand it. I used to believe in it. But science and reason taught me otherwise. I like you. I can tell you are sincere! But I do NOT believe in your religious arguments. I can, however, quite easily separate you from your arguments <smile>.
Science and reason are not opposed to religion. In fact both science and logic are things that I am attracted to because of religion. Take away religion and I would not and could not be bothered with science or reason. Religion for me provides purpose for life. Science might well explain life. And reason might well help me understand the processes of life - but neither provide purpose. And without purpose - not much really matters.
Interestingly, I don't think I have actually used a religious argument. So when you say you don't believe my religious arguments - which ones are you referring too?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ridiculing someone's sexual orientation is not at all analogous with ridiculing their arguments especially those with clear and identifiable logical flaws.
Absolutely it is. And in any event - for the record, labeling someone's alleged sexual orientation sinful is not ridiculing it. I call pedophilia sinful - I am not ridiculing it. I am saying it is wrong.
But as for being analogous, it clearly is the case. The Noah's Ark story does not have clear and identifiable logical flaws. Just saying it - does not make it so. If we applied that test to the big bang fairy tale I suggest it would also fall fatally to logic. It after all is not subject to testability, It is not repeatable - it is unable to be put under a microscope. We are told it is true - and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the people in the world would be unable to explain it satisfactorily - such that simple logic would call it into question.
Created:
-->
@Castin
On the contrary, I do not consider an attack on my opinions or arguments an attack on my person, and I do not consider it progress to think that way, particularly in a debate environment.You, however, seem to be having difficulty differentiating between an attack on your beliefs and an attack on your identity - probably because that difficulty is not unique to my generation at all. It is as old as humanity.
Such assumptions. LOL@ you. I have never suggested that I cannot distinguish between the two. Don't forget I noted that things used to be understood in a different way. This is actually accepting that there is a difference - but also acknowledging that the world has changed as well. Now we are no longer permitted in society to distinguish the two. When I say I disagree with the BLM - I am labeled a racist. This is me being accused of attacking the person. And in response it is permittable to call me a racist and to cancel me.
Attack someone's ideology and you are attacking that person. Attack some's identity and you attack them. Attack their belief and you are attacking them. You might distinguish the two and I say "good for you". Nevertheless, that makes you unique and at odds with the current cultural paradigm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Immaterial unless the Yahweh can be demonstrated through testable, repeatable and reliable methods. Preferably in such a way that it was confirmed by multiple examples of evidence by independent parties.
Another subjective statement by you. I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.
And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences..
and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is objectively true that without some standard we agree upon then no objective statements about morality are possible.
Respectfully, how can anything be objectively true until we have agreed to an objective standard? Even this statement of yours is a moral statement.
It is also objectively true that some god(s) existing does not necessitate any objective standard unless the standards of said god could be the demonstrated to be more than subjective opinion.
I can't say I agree with you here, not fully anyway. I would agree with you to the extent that you use the word "god(s)". Yet the Biblical GOD is of a different nature. Yet if the Biblical God exists - as the creator of everything then that ipso facto I would opine entitles his subject opinion - to be the benchmark of objectivity for everything else.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Also just to be clear ridiculing a person's beliefs is not analogous to ridiculing them.
Sorry old chap, that might have been what rational and reasonable people thought in the past, but it is not how it is anymore. Today the landscape has changed. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person. This is what is called progress. This is what the entire cancel generation is pushing. This is the new truth.
And people in this generation, when their beliefs are being attacked and ridiculed, are unable to separate themselves from the argument and their identity. Hence, why when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming. And Christians when they pushback on this idea - are not listened too.
But it works both ways. It is not just a one way street.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.
Says who? It sounds like you are making an objective statement? Or is that really just a subjective statement you are making? If it is the first, then what is objective standard you are basing it on. And if the latter, then aren't you really just giving people permission to abuse other people?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok, I will take that as a concession. For me whether the story is fictitious or not is irrelevant. It is the immediate ridicule and scorn of persons attempting to destroy other person's beliefs without actually considering the impact that this will have on them. And sorry I don't take the view that truth is a full defense. And nor do our modern mental health professionals. It is no different in many respects to what the author of Harry Potter is doing in respect of disagreeing with the notion that she is genderless. She may well be telling the truth that she is a female, but the damage she is causing is significant to those in the Trans movement. You might take the view that ridiculing people's personal beliefs is a good thing, but if it causes significant emotional distress that is another thing. If one person only gives up their belief in God and then goes out and kills themselves - would that be too many?
When I read the story of Noah, I have always just thought, infant animals or at least not fully grown animals. And I always roll my eyes when I see so called pictures with giraffe necks poking out through the roof of the Ark. And the main reason is because it is not consistent with the way it is portrayed in Genesis. However I also accept to a degree the artist's privilege to express themselves as well.
When the story of Noah is removed from the context of judgment and salvation it changes its meaning completely. So when people attempt to poke holes in the story to make it seem ridiculous, all that really achieves is to make the context a bit of a joke. And I suspect that probably is part of the agenda of those who do so. After all, if we can poke holes in a so called infallible word from a so called God, he can't be very infallible, can he? And certainly no one to be worried about. I can probably count on one hand the amount of people who try to poke holes in this story in an attempt to find the truth. It really is more about proving how stupid other people are and ergo how clever we are.
So yes it matters.
But thanks for conceding that the Bible does not specify the age of the animals and that it is therefore not totally implausible that such animals may well be infants or indeed anywhere else between an infant and fully grown animal. And if the situation was that they were infants, then their smaller size makes a significant difference as to how much room would be taken up on the ark, and indeed how much food would need to be stored for them. It does not prove the story correct, it simply provides an alternative perspective for those who do think whether it is fictional or not matters. And it also preserves, at least in this discrete issue, their dignity and ultimately their own mental health situation.
So unless you want to add more, why don't we move onto our next topic.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well as a matter of fact, I don't. And the reason for that is simple. This is a very discrete topic and issue. Opening it further than that only allows people to move the goalposts when they dislike the answers. And I would prefer it if we actually stayed on topic rather than exploring every little rabbit hole.
The story of Noah's Ark is straight forward and people want to complicate it. And turn it into something which it is not. Well, let's tackle this discrete issue first and then once that is done - then we can begin to explore other topics in other new topics.
Created:
The story of Genesis indicates in its pages that within centuries of being created humanity as a whole became so evil they did not deserve to live. God agreed with this position and so as the righteous judge properly and lawfully sentenced humanity to be annihilated. In respect of the rest of the creatures since God owned all of it by virtue of his creative rights, he determined that in order to properly sentence humanity, he would destroy all. So God destroyed everything, every person, every creature.
Yet God also provided a way forward for humanity. Hence he decided to demonstrate grace towards Noah, his family and either two or seven of every kind of creature, depending upon whether they were clean or unclean and in order for humanity to have a second chance. God knew that humanity did not deserve it. Yet, out of his kindness and mercy, he commanded Noah to build an Ark in which his family and all animals - could enter and be safe. Nowhere in any of the passages does it indicate he took fish into the Ark.
The question has been raised - how could Noah fit all of the world's animals in to the Ark? And most skepticism has arisen around the quantity and size of the animals. Not the only skepticism of course. How big was the ark, how did they all get there? Etc. Yet this topic is only about size of the animals - nothing else.
The skepticism seems to arise that due to the very large size of some adult animals in the world, that this proves - ipso facto it could not have happened. Yet the contrary position that the animals or many of the animals or even some of the animals may be infants interestingly changes the dynamics of the skeptic's queries. And this obviously is something that most of them had even considered. I think that is what hurts most. The fact that it is so obvious and yet they still missed it.
Some suggest it defies logic to put infants into the ark. I say it defies logic not to consider the possibility. After all, you don't want adult man eaters in the ark. You don't want adult dangerous animals in the Ark. You don't want adult animals that will clearly take up far too much room in the ark. You want animals that are small, young, fit, and healthy, but not ferocious man eaters that will cause not only havoc for the humans but the other animals as well. Common sense would suggest young and infants would be the most likely candidates.
Now some skeptics suggest that this is preposterous. They suggest that animal infants without full grown mothers will lack proper child -rearing regiments. Of course - there may be some truth to this. It certainly would be ideal if all infants had mothers to mother them and train them. Yet it certainly is not impossible that such infants would not survive without their mother, especially if they are being watched and cared for by others. In fact, there are many stories of wild infants surviving into adult hood without ANY MOTHER whatsoever helping them. But hey, let's not confuse ourselves with the facts.
As for the necessity to teach how to survive in the environment - the story is that after the flood - the world was a totally new environment. If all of the animals are young, then their most ferocious enemy is also going to be young. While the exact picture of what happened after the ark is unknown, if the skeptics are going to speculate, then those who are not so skeptical are also permitted to speculate.
The question remains however, does the bible command that only ADULT animals were permitted to go on the Ark? Or rather does it FORBID Noah taking infants onto the Ark? And the answer for both of these questions is NO. It is therefore quite plausible and reasonable to speculate that such animals were indeed infants or at the worst - not full grown animals. This of course exposes the skeptics as not doing their due diligence before attempting to refute the story. It reveals a bias.
Those who wish to reply to this OP - need only address the particular aspects of whether the Bible forbids infants from entering the Ark or rather the Bible only commanding that adults are put into the Ark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
I tried to start a topic- to address the issues. My bad. It is ironic that you fought so tough to get it closed down? What were you scared of? Why did you not want everything in one topic? Oh I know - because then people would see you as you really are.
I have learned my lesson. But just to be clear. The moderators on this last occasion closed the topic down because I breached the letter of the law. And the topic was closed not deleted. In relation to your first accusation of breaching the terms of CoC, you are however in error. The ruling as I recall was that the moderator considered your alleged complaint as over reach. And as such I was found as such not to have breached. And you continuing to lie and insinuate that I have is technically harassment.
Now you can lodge an appeal if you like - but the fact is - I did not breach the terms of CoC on that other occasion - and in respect of this second occasion, the appropriate sanction was to close it, to even to delete it. Obviously, the moderator takes the view that the intent of the topic is clear to those who read it as opposed to your spurious allegations.
Having said the above, I am now going to take the prudent step of politely asking you to not to respond to my posts or to mention me in your posts. I do not appreciate being harassed. And I have copied the moderator in as well to ensure the date and time of my polite request.
Created: