Zone1 The Ten Commandments don't apply to us.

[rosends]

Do you believe the entire planet was flooded as told in the flood account?

Yes

 

[ding]

Yes

Why?

The last time that happened was roughly 1.5 to 3.2 billion years ago, before plate tectonics pushed massive continents above the surface.

 

[rosends]

Why?

The last time that happened was roughly 1.5 to 3.2 billion years ago, before plate tectonics pushed massive continents above the surface.

OK, thanks.

 

[ding]

OK, thanks.

You're welcome but it makes more sense that the account of a flood is a narrative of an historical event (a noteworthy and unusual flooding event) that was crafted to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience and justice. If you are reading that account literally, then I don't see how you can believe God is good.

 

[ding]

OK, thanks.

Ancient Israelites took Sumerian accounts and altered them for their unique monotheistic perspective. Arguing that God really did do it literally makes God look bad. It's also more of a polytheistic belief in gods controlling the fates of man.

The oldest written flood account is the Sumerian Eridu Genesis (c. 2300 BCE). In this myth, the supreme god Enlil decides to destroy wicked and noisy humanity by a great flood. However, the god of wisdom, Enki, secretly warns the righteous king Ziusudra, allowing him to build a giant ark and survive.

 

[rightwinger]

The original Hebrew presents another picture. For example, the word for 'earth' did not signify the planet, but the local ground within sight. The flood waters did cover the ground. There is also the suggestion that the rain itself (the vertical downpour) is what "covered" sight of even the highest mountains in that location

Nice try, but the story clearly said Noah and his family were the last humans on that “earth” and all animals except those saved by Noah were killed.

Clearly, humans and animals existed beyond what Noah could see

 

[rosends]

You're welcome but it makes more sense that the account of a flood is a narrative of an historical event (a noteworthy and unusual flooding event) that was crafted to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience and justice. If you are reading that account literally, then I don't see how you can believe God is good.

I'm not sure why one would not assign "good" to God.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure why one would not assign "good" to God.

Maybe killing off mankind would be a good reason. Apparently you guys are opposed to there being a hell but are OK with God committing genocide of every man, woman, child and living animal.

 

[rosends]

Maybe killing off mankind would be a good reason.

If mankind was evil, wouldn't removing it be "good"?

Apparently you guys are opposed to there being a hell but are OK with God committing genocide of every man, woman, child and living animal.

who said I am opposed to a "hell"? Maybe I am in favor of it, but I am just imagining a different idea of what hell is. And if you view God as God, then it is tough to impose human standards and expectations on a deity and criticize when a human doesn't understand why God does what God does.

 

[ding]

If mankind was evil, wouldn't removing it be "good"?

There is usually a distribution for everything so I doubt EVERY man, woman, child and creature were evil. But setting that aside, I find it hard to believe that small children and animals are evil. Don't you?

who said I am opposed to a "hell"? Maybe I am in favor of it, but I am just imagining a different idea of what hell is. And if you view God as God, then it is tough to impose human standards and expectations on a deity and criticize when a human doesn't understand why God does what God does.

I agree. But God is logic among other "things," so it should make sense. God intended for us to use our brains. It makes much more sense that this is a narrative written by men of an historical event that was borrowed from a polytheistic myth about the historical event and was later modified for a monotheistic belief to teach lessons about the covenant with a moralistic and providential creator, obedience and justice.

 

[rosends]

There is usually a distribution for everything so I doubt EVERY man, woman, child and creature were evil. But setting that aside, I find it hard to believe that small children and animals are evil. Don't you?

nope. And it isn't whether I think of anyone or thing as evil, but if God did. If he saw a flaw built into the system that could only be erased, not fixed. Who knows? I'm not God and it isn't for me to tell him his business.

I agree. But God is logic among other "things," so it should make sense. God intended for us to use our brains. It makes much more sense that this is a narrative written by men of an historical event that was borrowed from a polytheistic myth about the historical event and was later modified for a monotheistic belief to teach lessons about the covenant with a moralistic and providential creator, obedience and justice.

"God is logic" I'm not sure what that means. If that's how you view ancient texts then that's great. Best of luck to you with that.

 

[ding]

And if you view God as God, then it is tough to impose human standards and expectations on a deity and criticize when a human doesn't understand why God does what God does.

That is exactly what you are doing when you attribute these acts to God rather than the men who actually wrote the account. It is an artifact of polytheism where God controlled everything. That's not a monotheistic belief.

 

[rosends]

That is exactly what you are doing when you attribute these acts to God rather than the men who actually wrote the account.

this is a function of my faith which dictates that men didn't write much of it.

It is an artifact of polytheism where God controlled everything. That's not a monotheistic belief.

if God controlled everything, how is that polytheistic?

 

[ding]

nope. And it isn't whether I think of anyone or thing as evil, but if God did. If he saw a flaw built into the system that could only be erased, not fixed. Who knows? I'm not God and it isn't for me to tell him his business.

You aren't using common sense. God didn't order a hit on mankind. That's polytheistic thinking. This is men crafting a narrative about an historical event to teach lessons.

"God is logic" I'm not sure what that means.

God isn't a thing. God is more like an action. God is every extant attribute of reality. Logic being just one of many extant attributes of reality.

If that's how you view ancient texts then that's great. Best of luck to you with that.

I have a pretty simple rule. If reading these texts make God look like a dick, then one isn't reading them properly. Your interpretation makes God look like a dick. Mine doesn't. I love God more than I love my religion.

 

[ding]

this is a function of my faith which dictates that men didn't write much of it.

It's better to serve God than it is to serve religion. Men made up these stories, not God.

if God controlled everything, how is that polytheistic?

God provides reality. That's not the same thing. The major difference between polytheism and monotheism is that polytheists believe gods control all aspects of nature and the affairs of men. Monotheism doesn't. Monotheists believe that God created existence and pretty much allows men to suffer the consequences or rewards of their actions. God isn't overtly pushing buttons and pulling levers. God is much more subtle than that.

 

[rosends]

You aren't using common sense. God didn't order a hit on mankind. That's polytheistic thinking. This is men crafting a narrative about an historical event to teach lessons.

that is your belief. Good luck with it.

God isn't a thing. God is more like an action. God is every extant attribute of reality. Logic being just one of many extant attributes of reality.

that's an interesting perspective. It isn't exactly mine though.

I have a pretty simple rule. If reading these texts make God look like a dick, then one isn't reading them properly. Your interpretation makes God look like a dick. Mine doesn't. I love God more than I love my religion.

that's nice. You don't understand my reading so you see it through your pre-existing lens and preconceived notion. That's your choice.

 

[rosends]

It's better to serve God than it is to serve religion. Men made up these stories, not God.

so you believe.

God provides reality. That's not the same thing. The major difference between polytheism and monotheism is that polytheists believe gods control all aspects of nature and the affairs of men. Monotheism doesn't. Monotheists believe that God created existence and pretty much allows men to suffer the consequences or rewards of their actions. God isn't overtly pushing buttons and pulling levers. God is much more subtle than that.

Your definition of monotheism is more like a prime mover theory, not a function of monotheism. In fact, I do not subscribe to that idea of a prime mover, disinterested god but I am a monotheist.

Maybe your definition of monotheism is wrong.

Monotheism | God, Definition, Types, Examples, & Religious Studies | Britannica

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one god, or in the oneness of God. It is distinguished from polytheism, the belief in the existence of many gods, from atheism, the belief that there is no god, and from agnosticism, the belief that the existence or nonexistence of a god or of gods is...

www.britannica.com

 

[ding]

that is your belief. Good luck with it.

Thanks

that's an interesting perspective. It isn't exactly mine though.

I understand. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion.

that's nice. You don't understand my reading so you see it through your pre-existing lens and preconceived notion. That's your choice.

I think I do understand your reading though. You are taking these accounts as gospel. I'm not. I am reading them to discover the intent of the authors which were men. You are reading them like they are from the mouth of God.

 

[rosends]

Thanks

I understand. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion.

I think I do understand your reading though. You are taking these accounts as gospel. I'm not. I am reading them to discover the intent of the authors which were men. You are reading them like they are from the mouth of God.

but I am using an understanding of the text that is significantly subtler than a simple reading -- the written words aren't gospel. The entire concept is and that is explained and fleshed out as part of a larger theology. You are reducing it to my "taking these accounts as gospel" and repeatedly insisting that humans were the authors. I disagree. Simple as that.

 

[ding]

so you believe.

So I know.

Your definition of monotheism is more like a prime mover theory, not a function of monotheism. In fact, I do not subscribe to that idea of a prime mover, disinterested god but I am a monotheist.

Maybe your definition of monotheism is wrong.

I didn't provide a definition. I was explaining the key difference between polytheism and monotheism. These accounts were adopted from polytheistic myths during a time when polytheism was the dominant belief of the land. And was then passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years. The original meaning was lost through time. For example, the Tower of Babel was about a migration away from Mesopotamia. It was an historical event that was embellished to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience and justice. That's how they passed down noteworthy historical events back then.