I think you have it backwards. I don't know about most, but many people of faith believe that God is always justified in killing people and only Noah, for example, was good, everyone else deserved their fate.So you agree with me and most people of faith. That's a big step for an atheist!
So Allah/God needed something to love but the idea of creation didn't qualify? You are limiting God's ability to love. A God so mysterious and who we know so little about.
That's why I explained what scripture says, and added that the Church says the same.
No, I don't have it backwards. But, as is often noted the Bible is for both those who splash in the shallows and those who dive in more deeply. Those who enjoy arguing with scripture stay in the shallows. Those who are after greater understanding dive in more deeply. I invite you into greater depths--perhaps the depths are not as playful as the shallows, but it is where beauty and wisdom dwell.
When the question is on that story, then you believe nothing, it seems. I can understand that.
I've never been convinced that miracles actually happen. There is no evidence of a miracle. That's also because I reject the supernatural completely. I'm always open to hearing of one!
Atheists don't have anything in common other than not being convinced that there is a god. Otherwise, my interest is in part to prevent innocent children and even adults from accepting myths and what I see as lies.
Again, explore the depths. What made Noah different from all the others? The story paints the story of a man who does not speak...and calls him good. When Noah does speak....He speaks a curse and once more we see division within the family of God. When it comes to goodness, we are a feeble, infirm people. We live in brokenness.
That's funny. Being "safe" never crossed my mind. How should I have been (or be) more daring?
I don't think you do. My college classes were English, creative writing, journalism. Let's take your favorite fictional story. Do you remember the setting? Do you believe the setting? What part did the setting play in the theme?
You could have gambled and said what you wanted to say, by mentioning the god. Then you would have been at risk of disobeying the rules.
I did not say the story didn't happen. I said, based on the story, the great flood was not planet-wide, it was a local flood where waters covered the ground as far as the eye could see. People who do not take care in reading the story--do not take into account its original language--come up with the idea that the author meant "planet wide". I don't believe that is the author's intent. Looking closely at the author's emphasis on certain aspects of his characters, I wonder if he saw the way opening for a new beginning for mankind, and in the end was mourning the reality that humans went right back to their old ways.
It was about the 'Little engine that could'. The setting was a steep hill and he had a heavy load. The theme was that we can succeed if we think we can! The little engine did.
You don't want to move on? You prefer sitting in the shallows? Sounds dull to me, but to each his own. Would you have preferred me to say, "Stay where you are."
If it was just a local flood and the pairs of animals weren't taken aboard, etc., then you have declared that the great flood didn't happen.
I have no quarrel with your interpretation of the story and it's meaning.
Not just your enjoyment!!
Hmmm. So the focus should have been on me, not my student's question? The question was how do they pass a test when they don't believe in evolution. My response was, "Did you learn what the text taught?" The answer was, Yes. Then note what the text taught and move on. I even said if they wanted (and had time), they could add what they thought about evolution.
I don't reject the story of Noah's Ark, so if you think I do, then we definitely disagree about something.
I don't have an "enlightened" version. I simply related what my Hebrew friend pointed out when focusing on the actual Hebrew instead of the King James English.
