A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it

[diver52]

All I have to go on is what is in the Bible. At least to evaluate the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Perhaps all that is going on is an evaluation of the Bible through the lens of our modern day culture as written and portrayed in modern English. The culture and ancient language present something entirely different.

Certainly true if the Bible is simply an historical text. There is much in it which justifies behavior which would be unacceptable today. But if all it is is an historical text, then it has nothing to do with God. Personally, I consider that to be the case.

I believe it is a bit of both. Much can be learned from studying God's creation and seeking a relationship with the creator. Before you try to understand the Bible, you might want to study the only evidence we have at our disposal which is nature herself. Of which we have a decided advantage as we can study ourselves. That's important because we are beings that know and create and we can use our experiences as creators to draw upon. In this regard we are unique to the animal kingdom.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

I agree. I simply do not accept the God part.

 

[diver52]

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

No, this proves that there is a devil. Once the devil is thereby proven, the existence of God follows.

That’s ridiculous. You have proven only that fear and superstition is a powerful motivating tool.

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

That's why many religions use this form of mind control to gain and keep their members. The Abrahamic religions use heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.

I think religion is quite a bit more than that when viewed for a sociological rather than an individual perspective. There has never been a human society larger than a small clan which did not have religion as a central feature. I think religion half of what holds a society together, the other half being government. The latter provide day to day operational control while the former provides long term justification for that control. It helps us from killing each other off before the kids grow up.

 

[Hollie]

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

No, this proves that there is a devil. Once the devil is thereby proven, the existence of God follows.

That’s ridiculous. You have proven only that fear and superstition is a powerful motivating tool.

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

That's why many religions use this form of mind control to gain and keep their members. The Abrahamic religions use heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.

I think religion is quite a bit more than that when viewed for a sociological rather than an individual perspective. There has never been a human society larger than a small clan which did not have religion as a central feature. I think religion half of what holds a society together, the other half being government. The latter provide day to day operational control while the former provides long term justification for that control. It helps us from killing each other off before the kids grow up.

In part, I agree but in a historical timeframe, religion served a purpose to cohere groups of people. However, regions also served to create divides. The competing Abrahamic religions, for example, and the various sub-sects of those religions are examples of religious belief creating divides. From my perspective, it’s the religious entities that tend to be exclusive of those who are part of the out-group. Just try being a Jew or Christian in any Arab nation. How many Christian Churches are there in the KSA? That’s a rhetorical question, BTW.

I disagree with your assessment about "operational control" based upon religion. Most westerners abhor religious doctrine being used for law, such as in the islamic Middle East, because such religious doctrine does not evolve as societies evolve.

I do find some arrogance in that believers are often quick to point out that their conception of the faith is true and inerrant in comparison to the conceptions of others.

I make judgments about interpretations of religious texts because they will always yield divisions. I suppose that’s way there are so many different religious faiths.

 

[RodISHI]

I am curious though. On what basis do you state that God is good? I find nothing in either the Old or New Testament to support that conclusion. Quite the contrary.

Both Old and New Testaments proclaim the goodness and love of God. The New Testament describes God as "Abba", meaning Father, or perhaps more accurately, Daddy.

I am fond of advising, First seek and find God--then read the Bible. I will not go into details, but I have experienced the love of God, which has given me a very strong belief that God loves everyone. Since that came at a young age, like so many I wondered why so many accounts of God's actions seem quite contrary to love and goodness. How could Biblical authors get so much wrong?

That had me delving into the history and cultures of Biblical times--and Rabbinical teachings. First, the original authors and audiences were not questioning the goodness and love of God. That was a given. Their focus was on the failure of humans to love and to be good. God's actions were seen as necessary for justice; and also pointed out how God's mercy was ever present in His justice.

The other subject I studied was science, because I believe science, as much or perhaps more so than Scripture, can also be a tremendous revelation about God.

The problem with hearing Bible stories as children is that children have an innate--and great--sense of fairness. If, as children, we are not taught what the original authors intended us to learn, as children we are going to jump to our own conclusions. Further, by the time we are teens, we have heard Bible stories so often, many of us are convinced we are well versed in the Bible and religion when nothing can be further from the truth.

Saint Theresa of Avila, author of the Interior Castle, noted that even most of us who faithfully attend religious services and pray regularly, only reach the entry way, or perhaps the first story, of that seven story Interior Castle. Getting people that far takes great effort--and people have to expend even greater effort in living their lives without also finding times to explore all the rooms on the first floor of the castle, let alone all the rooms on the other six floors. However, being aware that they are there for us can be of great encouragement and help to us.

Going back to the main point--and the most vital: Seek and find God, and the Bible takes on a whole new meaning than it does to a child who is just beginning to learn and understand.

What I notice here is while you say God is good, you provide not a single reference in the Bible where God is actually being good. I don't blame you since I never found one myself.

In any case, I am not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs. If you find comfort in them I truly am happy for you. For me, it is incomprehensible and I am not at all unhappy with it. I am just sharing my point of view with you, which in no way diminishes your point of view.

KJV

Matthew
19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?


19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark
10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

That just says he is good, not an example where he is being good.

As I said, I really don't get how you can accept this and take comfort from it.

It is not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of understanding the point(s) the original authors were passing on. To understand, one must let go of modern English and modern culture and study ancient languages and ancient cultures.

I do understand the points. They really aren't that difficult to understand. Perhaps I just look at those points from a different angle. For example, the story of Job is generally seen as a message about consistency of faith. The focus is on Job. But if you focus instead upon God in the story, then it is about uncaring pettiness and ego. Innocent people and animals were butchered just so God could say, "I told you so."

"Animals butchered"? Are you sure about that?

Yes. Job 1:16 "While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Job 'he returns' meaning he repents often is speaking about the goodness of God's grace. When you stub a toe and bloody it do you blame God or do you cleanse the wound to kill the bacteria and remove the offense of where you stubbed your toe? Spiritually speaking Job's getting a cleanup.

 

[RodISHI]

Actually, I see the story of Adam and Eve as the story of the original bad parent. They were innocent, like children. Put something directly in front of a child and tell them they can't touch it and then walk away. What do you think will happen? If God did not want them to eat of the tree, he should not have put the tree there. It was a set up.

As to knowing all good, that is impossible since "good" is an entirely subjective concept. You can only make that evaluation based upon your own standards. But morally you must evaluate and live in accordance with that evaluation. If it is wrong for him to do, it is wrong for me to do. If it is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for him. Your evaluation may differ from mine, but it is mine I must use. To use yours in favor of mine is to abdicate from personal responsibility.

It appears to me from what you post that you are making excuses of all sorts in order to accuse God for your personal issues.
A good parent God keeps that child from injuring itself until the point it is time to awaken the child at its later stage.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All I have to go on is what is in the Bible. At least to evaluate the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Perhaps all that is going on is an evaluation of the Bible through the lens of our modern day culture as written and portrayed in modern English. The culture and ancient language present something entirely different.

Certainly true if the Bible is simply an historical text. There is much in it which justifies behavior which would be unacceptable today. But if all it is is an historical text, then it has nothing to do with God. Personally, I consider that to be the case.

The Bible cannot simply be a "historical text". It makes nonsensical claims about divinity and miracles. Those books don't go in the history section. They go in the fiction section. The harry potter series mentions London...does that mean it goes into the history section, one day? Nope.

I didn't say it was a book of history, but that is an historical text. I've read any number of history books which reference the Bible. Have you read the Bible?

Of course i have. It's why I discarded the silly christian faith in the first place.

 

[diver52]

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

No, this proves that there is a devil. Once the devil is thereby proven, the existence of God follows.

That’s ridiculous. You have proven only that fear and superstition is a powerful motivating tool.

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

That's why many religions use this form of mind control to gain and keep their members. The Abrahamic religions use heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.

I think religion is quite a bit more than that when viewed for a sociological rather than an individual perspective. There has never been a human society larger than a small clan which did not have religion as a central feature. I think religion half of what holds a society together, the other half being government. The latter provide day to day operational control while the former provides long term justification for that control. It helps us from killing each other off before the kids grow up.

In part, I agree but in a historical timeframe, religion served a purpose to cohere groups of people. However, regions also served to create divides. The competing Abrahamic religions, for example, and the various sub-sects of those religions are examples of religious belief creating divides. From my perspective, it’s the religious entities that tend to be exclusive of those who are part of the out-group. Just try being a Jew or Christian in any Arab nation. How many Christian Churches are there in the KSA? That’s a rhetorical question, BTW.

I disagree with your assessment about "operational control" based upon religion. Most westerners abhor religious doctrine being used for law, such as in the islamic Middle East, because such religious doctrine does not evolve as societies evolve.

I do find some arrogance in that believers are often quick to point out that their conception of the faith is true and inerrant in comparison to the conceptions of others.

I make judgments about interpretations of religious texts because they will always yield divisions. I suppose that’s way there are so many different religious faiths.

Well, yes. What you describe is certainly the case but I do not accept this is because of religion. Religion is not some external being, it is the interaction of human beings. All those problems exist because human beings do not tend to work together without friction. We are social but we are not ants. So we tend to conglomerate in groups which vie against each other, often violently. But it is always because of us, not because of whatever beliefs that group might have. The same conflicts you find between Islam and Judaism you will find between the proponents of the Liverpool and Manchester football teams.

 

[diver52]

I am curious though. On what basis do you state that God is good? I find nothing in either the Old or New Testament to support that conclusion. Quite the contrary.

Both Old and New Testaments proclaim the goodness and love of God. The New Testament describes God as "Abba", meaning Father, or perhaps more accurately, Daddy.

I am fond of advising, First seek and find God--then read the Bible. I will not go into details, but I have experienced the love of God, which has given me a very strong belief that God loves everyone. Since that came at a young age, like so many I wondered why so many accounts of God's actions seem quite contrary to love and goodness. How could Biblical authors get so much wrong?

That had me delving into the history and cultures of Biblical times--and Rabbinical teachings. First, the original authors and audiences were not questioning the goodness and love of God. That was a given. Their focus was on the failure of humans to love and to be good. God's actions were seen as necessary for justice; and also pointed out how God's mercy was ever present in His justice.

The other subject I studied was science, because I believe science, as much or perhaps more so than Scripture, can also be a tremendous revelation about God.

The problem with hearing Bible stories as children is that children have an innate--and great--sense of fairness. If, as children, we are not taught what the original authors intended us to learn, as children we are going to jump to our own conclusions. Further, by the time we are teens, we have heard Bible stories so often, many of us are convinced we are well versed in the Bible and religion when nothing can be further from the truth.

Saint Theresa of Avila, author of the Interior Castle, noted that even most of us who faithfully attend religious services and pray regularly, only reach the entry way, or perhaps the first story, of that seven story Interior Castle. Getting people that far takes great effort--and people have to expend even greater effort in living their lives without also finding times to explore all the rooms on the first floor of the castle, let alone all the rooms on the other six floors. However, being aware that they are there for us can be of great encouragement and help to us.

Going back to the main point--and the most vital: Seek and find God, and the Bible takes on a whole new meaning than it does to a child who is just beginning to learn and understand.

What I notice here is while you say God is good, you provide not a single reference in the Bible where God is actually being good. I don't blame you since I never found one myself.

In any case, I am not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs. If you find comfort in them I truly am happy for you. For me, it is incomprehensible and I am not at all unhappy with it. I am just sharing my point of view with you, which in no way diminishes your point of view.

KJV

Matthew
19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?


19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark
10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

That just says he is good, not an example where he is being good.

As I said, I really don't get how you can accept this and take comfort from it.

It is not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of understanding the point(s) the original authors were passing on. To understand, one must let go of modern English and modern culture and study ancient languages and ancient cultures.

I do understand the points. They really aren't that difficult to understand. Perhaps I just look at those points from a different angle. For example, the story of Job is generally seen as a message about consistency of faith. The focus is on Job. But if you focus instead upon God in the story, then it is about uncaring pettiness and ego. Innocent people and animals were butchered just so God could say, "I told you so."

"Animals butchered"? Are you sure about that?

Yes. Job 1:16 "While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Job 'he returns' meaning he repents often is speaking about the goodness of God's grace. When you stub a toe and bloody it do you blame God or do you cleanse the wound to kill the bacteria and remove the offense of where you stubbed your toe? Spiritually speaking Job's getting a cleanup.

I cleanse the wound and blame no one but myself. I blame God for nothing, as that would be pointless. I am quite confident he doesn't exist and I might as well blame unicorns. This came up because I said I didn't get why anyone would feel comfort in this god. I still don't. I do not require or desire your agreement with me on it.

 

[diver52]

All I have to go on is what is in the Bible. At least to evaluate the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Perhaps all that is going on is an evaluation of the Bible through the lens of our modern day culture as written and portrayed in modern English. The culture and ancient language present something entirely different.

Certainly true if the Bible is simply an historical text. There is much in it which justifies behavior which would be unacceptable today. But if all it is is an historical text, then it has nothing to do with God. Personally, I consider that to be the case.

The Bible cannot simply be a "historical text". It makes nonsensical claims about divinity and miracles. Those books don't go in the history section. They go in the fiction section. The harry potter series mentions London...does that mean it goes into the history section, one day? Nope.

I didn't say it was a book of history, but that is an historical text. I've read any number of history books which reference the Bible. Have you read the Bible?

Of course i have. It's why I discarded the silly christian faith in the first place.

Then how is it not an historical text? The Declaration of Independence mentions a creator, does that make it not an historical text?

 

[diver52]

Actually, I see the story of Adam and Eve as the story of the original bad parent. They were innocent, like children. Put something directly in front of a child and tell them they can't touch it and then walk away. What do you think will happen? If God did not want them to eat of the tree, he should not have put the tree there. It was a set up.

As to knowing all good, that is impossible since "good" is an entirely subjective concept. You can only make that evaluation based upon your own standards. But morally you must evaluate and live in accordance with that evaluation. If it is wrong for him to do, it is wrong for me to do. If it is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for him. Your evaluation may differ from mine, but it is mine I must use. To use yours in favor of mine is to abdicate from personal responsibility.

It appears to me from what you post that you are making excuses of all sorts in order to accuse God for your personal issues.
A good parent God keeps that child from injuring itself until the point it is time to awaken the child at its later stage.

You are certainly free to hold that opinion.

 

[Meriweather]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, I see the story of Adam and Eve as the story of the original bad parent. They were innocent, like children. Put something directly in front of a child and tell them they can't touch it and then walk away. What do you think will happen? If God did not want them to eat of the tree, he should not have put the tree there. It was a set up.

As to knowing all good, that is impossible since "good" is an entirely subjective concept. You can only make that evaluation based upon your own standards. But morally you must evaluate and live in accordance with that evaluation. If it is wrong for him to do, it is wrong for me to do. If it is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for him. Your evaluation may differ from mine, but it is mine I must use. To use yours in favor of mine is to abdicate from personal responsibility.

Again, the focus of the story is on the people, not on God. There was a choice before mankind: To know only good and therefore be good like God; or, to know both good and evil and, like God, choose good. Fire is a good example. Mankind could choose to only know the good fire brings about: Warmth, cooking, beauty. Or, he could choose to know the inverse side as well: Injury, even fatal injury, destruction of all kinds, and torture. The story of Genesis is more about the choice mankind made and not about God being a bad parent. Clearly, God counseled His children, because while the choice was ours, He did have a preference. We had a different preference, and like all loving parents God is still with us to love and support, no matter whether the child's choice is to go to college or become a single parent.

 

[Meriweather]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The Bible is a story about people and how they see themselves relating to God. Psalms 34, 71, 145 are an example of how people of that age also see God.

 

[diver52]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

 

[diver52]

Actually, I see the story of Adam and Eve as the story of the original bad parent. They were innocent, like children. Put something directly in front of a child and tell them they can't touch it and then walk away. What do you think will happen? If God did not want them to eat of the tree, he should not have put the tree there. It was a set up.

As to knowing all good, that is impossible since "good" is an entirely subjective concept. You can only make that evaluation based upon your own standards. But morally you must evaluate and live in accordance with that evaluation. If it is wrong for him to do, it is wrong for me to do. If it is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for him. Your evaluation may differ from mine, but it is mine I must use. To use yours in favor of mine is to abdicate from personal responsibility.

Again, the focus of the story is on the people, not on God. There was a choice before mankind: To know only good and therefore be good like God; or, to know both good and evil and, like God, choose good. Fire is a good example. Mankind could choose to only know the good fire brings about: Warmth, cooking, beauty. Or, he could choose to know the inverse side as well: Injury, even fatal injury, destruction of all kinds, and torture. The story of Genesis is more about the choice mankind made and not about God being a bad parent. Clearly, God counseled His children, because while the choice was ours, He did have a preference. We had a different preference, and like all loving parents God is still with us to love and support, no matter whether the child's choice is to go to college or become a single parent.

And we are back to it. You call God good. I have asked for one example in the Bible which shows God as being good and not a single one so far as been presented. There is zero basis in the Bible to support that claim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then how is it not an historical text?

Well, no offense, but i can't think of anythong more boring than a semantic argument. If you admit that fiction books can be "historical texts" by your definition, then we don't disagree.

 

[diver52]

Then how is it not an historical text?

Well, no offense, but i can't think of anythong more boring than a semantic argument. If you admit that fiction books can be "historical texts" by your definition, then we don't disagree.

No offense taken. I have no problem with you disagreeing, but we do indeed disagree. I strongly suspect most historians will disagree with you as well.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then how is it not an historical text?

Well, no offense, but i can't think of anythong more boring than a semantic argument. If you admit that fiction books can be "historical texts" by your definition, then we don't disagree.

No offense taken. I have no problem with you disagreeing, but we do indeed disagree. I strongly suspect most historians will disagree with you as well.

On which part? Specifically? They would agree with me 100%. Sure, it's an old document with a few factual references and a prominent position in culture. And that is what makes it "historical". No,i don't think we do disagree.

There are also historical science theories, like alchemy. If you found an old alchemy tome, you could call it "historical". But that doesn't grant any merit or truth to the content.

 

[Meriweather]

not a single one so far as been presented

True, three examples are not "a single one".

 

[diver52]

Then how is it not an historical text?

Well, no offense, but i can't think of anythong more boring than a semantic argument. If you admit that fiction books can be "historical texts" by your definition, then we don't disagree.

No offense taken. I have no problem with you disagreeing, but we do indeed disagree. I strongly suspect most historians will disagree with you as well.

On which part? Specifically? They would agree with me 100%. Sure, it's an old document with a few factual references and a prominent position in culture. And that is what makes it "historical". No,i don't think we do disagree.

There are also historical science theories, like alchemy. If you found an old alchemy tome, you could call it "historical". But that doesn't grant any merit or truth to the content.

Well, yes. I would call such a tome historical. As would any historian. As to which part of the Bible, that would depend upon what the historian was writing about. For example, in The Mythmaker Hyam Maccoby focuses upon the New Testament and the impact of early Christianity on the west. Do you actually think historians ignore a book which has had such a major impact upon western society?