Zone1 Too Bad That God Promised No More Great Floods

[ding]

No

Thank you for that. I didn't think you did. But you might want to consider reframing your argument in the future. It is a much more honest and genuine argument if you say that you don't believe God said those things because you don't believe that God exists and so you believe that that was Jewish embellishment. And then question whether or not they believe God gave that command and react from there.

So... is there anything you want to ask me? Hopefully without being too argumentative as I explain my beliefs and the basis of those beliefs.

 

[ding]

I desire to understand the essence of my soul, but my desire didn't lead to a belief in the supernatural. That doesn't mean I don't think we are more than the sum of our parts.

Sounds like you are recoiling from the logical conclusion of atheism that you aren't more than the sum of your parts.

 

[BreezeWood]

Thank you! Sometimes I find it amazing that God has been as patient with us as He has been.

I mean, when you look at all the evil people do, and how so many people thumb their nose at God's basic rules.... I'd say people are lucky to get the 80-100 or so years we have been given.

pandering admissions by the desert is nothing new nor their claims including others than just themselves ...

 

[surada]

Right.

Do you believe that it was Jewish embellishment? That distinction is also important, you know. If you don't you're saying the genocide was ordered by the God you believe in. If you do believe that it was Jewish embellishment and the genocide was not God's desire, you're saying the Bible is not the work of God and is not to be trusted and your house of cards for God collapses.

The original flood story said God destroyed humanity because they had become too numerous and too noisy in the garden of Eden.

 

[surada]

Right.

Do you believe that it was Jewish embellishment? That distinction is also important, you know. If you don't you're saying the genocide was ordered by the God you believe in. If you do believe that it was Jewish embellishment and the genocide was not God's desire, you're saying the Bible is not the work of God and is not to be trusted and your house of cards for God collapses.

The Jews adapted the myth of Gilgamesh. It's a morality tale of redemption. It's not history.

 

[alang1216]

No, but given what you likely mean by the word, one probably needs to be a faggot to “love your fellow man” the way that you surely mean.

"The second [commandment] is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." I don't think he meant to go next door and start an orgy.

Whether I do or not is my business. I do not need some ignorant, Godless piece of shit such as yourself to tell me anything about my faith.

You'd do much better to get yourself right with God, than to worry about my status therewith.

The advantage of being a Godless piece of shit is that I don't have to worry about going to hell for believing in the wrong religion.

 

[alang1216]

The original flood story said God destroyed humanity because they had become too numerous and too noisy in the garden of Eden.

Really? Abortion is a no no but drowning people is fine. Interesting theology.

 

[alang1216]

The Jews adapted the myth of Gilgamesh. It's a morality tale of redemption. It's not history.

Are you talking about the Flood or Jericho?

 

[alang1216]

Other than having peace through the storm, objectivity and happiness I don't see much difference between me and my three sisters who are atheists. They are great human beings.

Sorry to hear, I feel bad for your family. Are they not at peace and are unhappy because they are atheists or because they are your sisters? Just kidding.

 

[ding]

Sorry to hear, I feel bad for your family. Are they not at peace and are unhappy because they are atheists or because they are your sisters? Just kidding.

It's an incremental thing due to the functional advantage of believing we are more than just matter.

I'm surprised you didn't ask me how I reconcile my beliefs concerning the use of embellishment in the OT. Were you just assuming there can't possibly be a logical answer?

 

[alang1216]

Thank you for that. I didn't think you did. But you might want to consider reframing your argument in the future. It is a much more honest and genuine argument if you say that you don't believe God said those things because you don't believe that God exists and so you believe that that was Jewish embellishment. And then question whether or not they believe God gave that command and react from there.

I think the Jews believed they did nothing wrong. The sign that God approved was the fact of their victory. Paganism was very transactional and impersonal back then.

So... is there anything you want to ask me? Hopefully without being too argumentative as I explain my beliefs and the basis of those beliefs.

I know that your perception of "the God of the OT" does not match the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT" and until it does there's not much sense in discussing YOUR perception of "the God of the OT" as I don't accept it. Your perception of "the God of the OT" is biased by your atheism. If I believed your perception of "the God of the OT" I'd be an atheist too because your perception of "the God of the OT" is designed to produce that result.

So what is the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT"?

 

[alang1216]

It's an incremental thing due to the functional advantage of believing we are more than just matter.

I think you've answered my question.

I'm surprised you didn't ask me how I reconcile my beliefs concerning the use of embellishment in the OT. Were you just assuming there can't possibly be a logical answer?

I believe I did but that was one of the questions you didn't answer. I'm happy to hear the answer now.

 

[alang1216]

Sounds like you are recoiling from the logical conclusion of atheism that you aren't more than the sum of your parts.

Sounds like you ignored me when I wrote "That doesn't mean I don't think we are more than the sum of our parts". If you want to credit the "magic" of our intelligence to the supernatural you're welcome to. Me, I'm fine with accepting it is a product of nature, doesn't mean it is not wonderous however it came to be.

 

[ding]

I believe I did but that was one of the questions you didn't answer. I'm happy to hear the answer now.

Seems like there was a bit of a communication gap between us there. I assumed you were going to follow up after we established you didn't believe God actually gave that command. That way it would have been cleaner with you asking me a question rather than me trying to state your question for you. But here goes... If I understood you correctly, you believe that if I believe that it was Jewish embellishment and the genocide was not God's desire, I'm saying the Bible is not the work of God and is not to be trusted and my house of cards for God collapses. Right?

The short answer is no that's not what that means at all.

First of all, I believe the word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

Secondly, God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes only known to the infallible Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the point of these historical accounts are true - historical battles did occur. The intent of the account is to record that history, not that God commanded it. The details are embellished for a number of reasons with the most obvious being since they were victorious they concluded God is great and on their side. In some cases the accounts were embellished to make the accounts more memorable (Genesis and Exodus to name two) so that they could be passed down orally from generation to generation more easily. In other cases - like the one we are discussing - the accounts were embellished so that a broader, more nuanced, truth across the books could be shown. You have to contrast the accounts of their victories with the accounts of their defeats and place that contrast in the context of their entire history to understand the broader, more nuanced truth which is this... the OT is the account of a people who cycled between remembering and forgetting God. Their experiences can be summarized by saying successful behaviors (remembering God) naturally lead to success and failed behaviors (forgetting God) naturally lead to failure. This is a true statement. Without the embellishment it wouldn't be possible to distinguish that truth from the historical accounts of victory and defeat. As it is in the accounts of defeat that they conclude that they didn't lose because God isn't great and not on their side, but because there was something God wanted them to learn.

 

[ding]

Sounds like you ignored me when I wrote "That doesn't mean I don't think we are more than the sum of our parts". If you want to credit the "magic" of our intelligence to the supernatural you're welcome to. Me, I'm fine with accepting it is a product of nature, doesn't mean it is not wonderous however it came to be.

I didn't ignore it. On the contrary it was that statement which led me to conclude the logical conclusion of atheism leaves you wanting. I don't credit the "magic" of our intelligence to the supernatural. I credit that man was made to worship their creator rather than the created and it is that which leads to his success and happiness not because of magic but because of logic reasons.

 

[ding]

I think you've answered my question.

It's based on the science of happiness. We live in a logical universe where every effect had a cause. It's not because of magic that belief in God has always existed. It's because of logical reasons.

The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.

 

[ding]

I think the Jews believed they did nothing wrong. The sign that God approved was the fact of their victory. Paganism was very transactional and impersonal back then.

That seems overly simplistic and full of innuendo. I believe it was a little more complex than that.

 

[ding]

So what is the Hebrew perception of "the God of the OT"?

I thought the link to Huston Smith's comments answered this but you didn't seem to agree with me so. I'll accept the wikipedia's answer to your question. But to be honest it's not that hard to figure out if you read the OT.

Jews traditionally believe in a monotheistic conception of God (God is only one), which is both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the material universe).

God in Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this one too.

The Nature of God / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre

Discusses the fundamental Jewish beliefs about the nature of God and His relationship with the universe and with humanity.

mechon-mamre.org

 

[surada]

Are you talking about the Flood or Jericho?

Gilgamesh.. predates the flood story of Noah. Jericho is way below sea level and there's no evidence of flooding.

 

[Batcat]

The problem is that the original flood story is a myth.

But the biggest problem is that such a flood murders the sinners and the saints. If you believe in the flood story, that is fine. But how can you honestly believe that one man and his family were the only good people on the entire planet?

Consider the fact that in the time of the flood what the people alive then would have been considered to be a world wide flood, we might call a regional flood.

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org