Zone1 Have we lost The Bible Story?

[Meriweather]

You don't have free will to teach what you want to teach. That is how it must be, because everyone's free will differs.

Your church allows you to interpret the truth but the school board doesn't.

The school insists on Darwinian evolution being accepted and taught. You don't have 'free will' to teach creation.

My free will fails at gardening as well. I plant a seed and will a sunflower to grow, so why does a sweet pea pop up? Or nothing at all?

And...for the sake of argument, I could teach creation, but there is a consequence that goes with it. I do teach evolution and accept the consequences that go with it (students asking about creation).

 

[Meriweather]

If you know in advance the consequences you exercise free will. If God chooses to remain hidden except from the Elect, the Chosen, etc., our will is not so free. If you come before God and he says, sorry you're going to Hell since you didn't follow Mohammad, did you really have free will?

Why do you think God would take such a position? Is it because that's the position you would take?

 

[alang1216]

Are you saying they were responsible? Then what about today when a child contracts cancer. Do you believe that child was somehow responsible?

No, you might want to reread my post.

Try reading Biblical stories/lessons without jumping to conclusions that you think children and animals were responsible for the flood. Even Biblical adults were not responsible for the flood. In hindsight, what they took into account their behavior before the flood, and their conclusion was such behavior deserved to be stopped. At the end of the story, another conclusion was reached...that same behavior was destined to start all over again, and the very person who did not engage in it before the flood, was the very person who started the ball rolling again after the flood.

You mean we are the way God made us?

There is a lot of depth in the story of the flood, but most seem content to play in the shallows...and blame babies and animals. Dig deeper! What is the theme? What is the lesson? It is a story, not a scientific, encyclopedia, newspaper account of an actual event. The flood is the setting of a story, a story with a theme--and a very common theme at that.

There were many such stories circulating in the near East. To understand this one you should read the ones that came before. Spoiler alert, they are theology, not history.

 

[alang1216]

Smith was a known liar and fabricator. Let me know if you want more information, but for a start, look up the Book of Abraham.

Mohammad starts with Allah, one God. If that god can love, he can only love himself. But the Christian Triune God is able to love from eternity--the three in one. Love has an object.

Are you one person? Can you love others? You can define God any way you want and His definition has been debated and evolved over the centuries.

 

[Meriweather]

No, you might want to reread my post.

Shrug. You were the one who brought up children and animals being held responsible. Or were you suggesting that I hold children and animals responsible? Who is holding children and animals responsible?

 

[alang1216]

Why do you think God would take such a position? Is it because that's the position you would take?

I think it is the position of most theologies. John said the way to the father...

 

[Meriweather]

You mean we are the way God made us?

Turns out human intent differed from God's intent. God said he could still work within the confines of human intent--and has.

 

[Meriweather]

you should read the ones that came before.

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[Donald H]

I believe there was a great flood. I don't believe it was a planet-wide flood. The Hebrew atheist I once knew explained that when water covered the earth, it was in the context that water covered the ground. Another word was used for planet.

I wouldn't discount your belief. If in fact thate is truth in the story then that's a possible and rational explanation.

Is there a range of numbers that qualify as "many"? My understanding is that many means a lot, but no one knows the exact number. Is it your understanding that an exact number is available?

No on an exact number.

I'm not clear on your point. Apparently you believe all Biblical accounts are literal?

No, of course not and we've long since come to agreement on that not being true. You can choose which are literally true and I have no basis on which to say you are wrong. That too has been established.

Were you never taught the various short story classifications? Fables, myths, folklore, legend, just so, etc.?

Yes, I did.

You never went through the Bible identifying what type of classification the various authors used to present their themes/lessons?

No, I didn't, but perhaps you can teach me, with examples that can facilitate an atheist's ability to separate the themes/lessons from what you suggest that I should already understand.

Is there any tangible concept that says something in the bibles is lierally true and that which can be accepted as not?

I have to keep coming back to Jonah and the big fish story. A roughly equal number of Christians believe it as the number who understand that it's not to be believed.

The Catholic church raised the question. I'm only using the opportunity to make the point on no strict beliefs can be demanded by the church now.

Except that god created everything.

And now we know that can't be true!

 

[Donald H]

My free will fails at gardening as well. I plant a seed and will a sunflower to grow, so why does a sweet pea pop up? Or nothing at all?

And...for the sake of argument, I could teach creation, but there is a consequence that goes with it. I do teach evolution and accept the consequences that go with it (students asking about creation).

I don't accept that you can 'will' a sunflower anything.

Do you honestly get questions on creation from teaching evolution? And then do you have free will to express your opinion?

I don't believe that the schools would find your opinions on creation acceptable for the students.

 

[SweetSue92]

Are you one person? Can you love others? You can define God any way you want and His definition has been debated and evolved over the centuries.

I have others to love.

From eternity, Allah and other monotheistic gods did not. Only the triune God explains how eternal love is possible.

To your last sentence: you can define anything "any way you want". Playing with definitions has no bearing on truth, and often detracts from it. We see that in the culture now in spades.

 

[Meriweather]

No, I didn't, but perhaps you can teach me, with examples that can facilitate an atheist's ability to separate the themes/lessons from what you suggest that I should already understand.

Is there any tangible concept that says something in the bibles is lierally true and that which can be accepted as not?

I have to keep coming back to Jonah and the big fish story. A roughly equal number of Christians believe it as the number who understand that it's not to be believed.

The Catholic church raised the question. I'm only using the opportunity to make the point on no strict beliefs can be demanded by the church now.

Except that god created everything.

And now we know that can't be true!

Determine the theme/lesson the story teaches. Determine what story style was used to present the lesson. (Talking animals? Fable. How something came to be? Just so. Out-of-sight heroism? Legend/Folklore.)

As far as Jonah and the big fish: Could be true, might be metaphor. Either way, we learn that Jonah was in a dark place when he disregarded the words of the Lord, and emerged into light once he decided to follow them. Is there truly any benefit whether the dark place was in the belly of a fish, or simply a dark place. It appears that Jonah's shipmates thought he brought bad luck. Was it possible they tossed him in the belly of the ship, the brig, until they came ashore and evicted him from the ship? How would where Jonah spent the three days change the story of him turning from disobedience to obedience?

Those of us who have experienced miracles in our own lives, are not quick to dismiss miracles in the lives of others. What purpose does an atheist have for picking a story apart? Is s/he looking for the lesson/theme, or is s/he searching for an excuse not to believe? Let every atheist know: You are excused from believing. Move on while those who remain behind discuss the theme/lesson.

 

[Meriweather]

Do you honestly get questions on creation from teaching evolution? And then do you have free will to express your opinion?

Of course! And don't be silly, the students don't care what I believe, they care about their grade--and their own personal belief. I tell them their answer can begin with, "The text teaches...." I explain if they ever feel boxed in, they simply need to look into their own hearts and decide what is more important to them: Their personal belief or their grade. For those who are still uncertain, I do add that being true to a grade passes, while being true to oneself is everlasting.

 

[alang1216]

Shrug. You were the one who brought up children and animals being held responsible. Or were you suggesting that I hold children and animals responsible? Who is holding children and animals responsible?

Did you actually reread my post: "Whatever brought on these disasters, the babies that died there were not responsible. Neither were the animals."

 

[alang1216]

What makes you think I haven't?

If you had I'd think your view would be different, but maybe not.

 

[alang1216]

I have others to love.

From eternity, Allah and other monotheistic gods did not. Only the triune God explains how eternal love is possible.

So as a single entity you can love but God cannot? Sounds like you are putting limits on God.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Are Christians guilty of scaring people into Christianity with threats of hell?

Let's ask Jesus;

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

 

[Meriweather]

Did you actually reread my post: "Whatever brought on these disasters, the babies that died there were not responsible. Neither were the animals."

So you agree with me and most people of faith. That's a big step for an atheist!

 

[Meriweather]

Let's ask Jesus;

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

As you may remember, I take into account the Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, Greek etymology of the word.

Let's take a look at the foundation of the sentence. "I tell you, no. But unless you turn from disobedience to obedience, you will turn to ruin (or destruction). Sometimes that might be separation from God. Makes, sense, does it not? Disobedience separates one from God; obedience turns one towards God and his ways. As you may recall, Catholics do define hell as separation from God.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

As you may recall, Catholics do define hell as separation from God.

Those who end up in the Lake of Fire are CONSUMED and dead forever.

It only matters what the Scriptures say -- not your church