• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

Was there a global flood?
Click to expand...

Well, the geologic record says no, at least not six thousand years ago, but the Bible says the flood covered the highest mountains, so inerrantists are constrained to say there was.
 
Floods happen again and again, for example the Grand Canyon...over millions of years

 
Last edited:
Yes, there is solid evidence of worldwide flooding, just not one global-encircling flood that covered Mount Everest five thousand years after the Chinese learned to cultivate rice. But the author of Genesis said there was, so Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and their ilk, argue that God created the universe in a week six thousand years ago, and no evidence will convince them otherwise.

On a planet three-fourths covered in water, and with a species that has a propensity to dwell on shore lines, one would expect to find common stories about that big flood that happened way back when.

But this thread is about morality in the Bible. So my question remains--why did God drown puppies, but spare barracudas?
 
James Brown said:
Yes, there is solid evidence of worldwide flooding, just not one global-encircling flood that covered Mount Everest five thousand years after the Chinese learned to cultivate rice. But the author of Genesis said there was, so Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and their ilk, argue that God created the universe in a week six thousand years ago, and no evidence will convince them otherwise.

On a planet three-fourths covered in water, and with a species that has a propensity to dwell on shore lines, one would expect to find common stories about that big flood that happened way back when.

But this thread is about morality in the Bible. So my question remains--why did God drown puppies, but spare barracudas?
Click to expand...
But I don't think that a world wide flood happened at once! There were different floods! In different places, over a large period of time! That's why I posted the video of the Grand Canyon! It was flooded at least 8 times! Geology is amazing!!! Look at the marine fossils!!!
 
James Brown said:
Yes, there is solid evidence of worldwide flooding, just not one global-encircling flood that covered Mount Everest five thousand years after the Chinese learned to cultivate rice. But the author of Genesis said there was, so Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and their ilk, argue that God created the universe in a week six thousand years ago, and no evidence will convince them otherwise.

On a planet three-fourths covered in water, and with a species that has a propensity to dwell on shore lines, one would expect to find common stories about that big flood that happened way back when.

But this thread is about morality in the Bible. So my question remains--why did God drown puppies, but spare barracudas?
Click to expand...
Barracuda is safe to eat if prepared correctly. Barracudas have good nutrition and provide attractive and protein-rich meat. However, meat from large barracudas can contain harmful bacteria and viruses. These pathogens can cause ciguatera poison, a harmful infection from eating certain fish.

But in any case, the world wide flood covering all the land masses as described in Noah's Bible story, NEVER HAPPENED!
And if anyone says the opposite, they better have geological proof. As simple as that...
 
Thomas II said:
Question: Is knowledge (Gnosis) the unforgivable sin?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Gnosis is the nature of God, which we are all invited to participate in. Ignorance and folly are the vices you're looking for.

"Woe unto you, makers of laws! For though having taken away the Key to Gnosis, neither have you yourself entered, and those who did enter in, you hindered." ~ Big J Daddy, Lk 11
 
Oh. I thought the whole, "You ate from the Tree of Knowledge? Now you have to die. And work hard all your life. And nearly die every time you give birth, etc." suggested otherwise.

And it's not just me. Martin Luther regarded reason as "the devil's bride" and "a beautiful whore" and "God's worst enemy." Immanuel Kant wrote that he “found it necessary to deny knowledge of God ... in order to find a place for faith.” Tertullian argued that philosophy "supplies the heresies with their equipment," and wished "a plague on Aristotle." He agreed with the biblical promise that God "will destroy the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Unless the Gnosis God you're thinking of is entirely a different being than the YHWH who liked to walk around in the Garden of Eden because it was cool and felt nice.
 
James Brown said:
Oh. I thought the whole, "You ate from the Tree of Knowledge? Now you have to die. And work hard all your life. And nearly die every time you give birth, etc." suggested otherwise
Click to expand...
Those were consequences of our species great leap ahead in cognition, yes?

Your quote mining is boring, I didn't claim that ignorance hadn't got its fans. I just think they are wrong. To the extent that you are accurately quoting all those individuals anyway, which of course you aren't. Aside from Tertullian, who really was a shitbag who hated philosophy. Kant, not so much, and I think you know that. And Luther is complicated. I don't feel compelled to agree with dead people, whoever they are, unless they have a reasonable argument to make.
 
Politesse said:
Those were consequences of our species great leap ahead in cognition, yes?
Click to expand...

I guess you'll have to walk me through that one. Here we have Adam and Eve living in blissful ease, except they don't know the difference between Good and Evil. YHWH gives some vague warning about that, but their God-given curiosity compels them to find out.

Then YHWH tells them they have to die--whereupon they proceed to live for over nine-hundred years. I don't see how that follows from gaining knowledge.

YHWH then makes thorns and thistles grow everywhere. I don't see how that follows from two people gaining knowledge.

YHWH then makes it so that every single woman has to suffer during childbirth. I don't see how the ratio between the width of a newborn's cranium and the width of a woman's pelvis follows from one woman gaining knowledge.

But what do I know? Mythology is tough. And YHWH is far from an omniscient, omni-benevolent being.
 
James Brown said:
Politesse said:
Those were consequences of our species great leap ahead in cognition, yes?
Click to expand...

I guess you'll have to walk me through that one. Here we have Adam and Eve living in blissful ease, except they don't know the difference between Good and Evil. YHWH gives some vague warning about that, but their God-given curiosity compels them to find out.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean, "hey let's entertain the idea that this is the literal account of a historical event", just observing that the myth correctly identifies some of the things that make humans unique, for good or ill. Ideological warfare and language are tackled later in the book, completing the set.

James Brown said:
Then YHWH tells them they have to die--whereupon they proceed to live for over nine-hundred years. I don't see how that follows from gaining knowledge.
Click to expand...
Do other creatures fear death, though, or is our knowledge of mortality that leads to our anguish about it?

James Brown said:
YHWH then makes thorns and thistles grow everywhere. I don't see how that follows from two people gaining knowledge.
Click to expand...
Farming is an invention, not an instinct; it requires quite a bit of specialized knowledge. And without a farm, why worry about thistles?

James Brown said:
YHWH then makes it so that every single woman has to suffer during childbirth. I don't see how the ratio between the width of a newborn's cranium and the width of a woman's pelvis follows from one woman gaining knowledge.
Click to expand...
Not all creatures experience the same agonies in childbirth as humans; it is a consequence of natural selection favoring an enormous frontal lobe over successful or comfortable childbirths.
 
James Brown said:
Politesse said:
Those were consequences of our species great leap ahead in cognition, yes?
Click to expand...

I guess you'll have to walk me through that one. Here we have Adam and Eve living in blissful ease, except they don't know the difference between Good and Evil. YHWH gives some vague warning about that, but their God-given curiosity compels them to find out.
Click to expand...
Some vague warning? The gist of the warning is sufficient enough for the reader. I mean... what reason was derived for the faulty idea that any communication and dialogue between God and Adam & Eve would be so "vague and brief" counting word for word from the texts? This would be misleading or disengenous to assert the suggestion - seeding the notion of a faulty premise (which unfortunately some theists may fall into this line of thinking).

James Brown said:
Then YHWH tells them they have to die--whereupon they proceed to live for over nine-hundred years. I don't see how that follows from gaining knowledge.
Click to expand...

We read it differently of course. To die means they no longer physically live forever. That's the gist of it throughout the bible.
 
You and I clearly didn't attend the same church.

Yes, there are things that distinguish mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. The reason for those differences varies among certain groups of people.

Most educated citizenry agree that physiological changes and emergent properties of increased cranial capacity led to these differences, like awareness of death, agriculture, and difficult childbirths. You and I clearly agree there.

Other people, however, think that these differences are because a man and woman opted for fruit salad one day, which made their caretaker mad. The apostle Paul includes himself in their ranks ("By one man, sin entered the world...") and many Christians, ancient and modern, toe the party line.

I'm glad you're not one of them. Although I still find it puzzling that the nature of the Biblical God is considered to be knowledge, given how grudging YHWH is in dispensing it. We're given Ten Commandments--one of them about not boiling veal in milk--but nothing like, "Thou shalt neither buy nor sell another person," or "Thou shalt wash thy hands before cooking, eating, or practicing healing."
 
Learner said:
We read it differently of course. To die means they no longer physically live forever.
Click to expand...

Except there was no indication that they were going to physically live forever anyway.

Yes, there's something about fruit from the Tree of Life. I'd say there's no evidence that such a thing existed.

But I'll play along with the myth-making. So the idea is that Adam and Eve--who were hand-made by YHWH--would live forever in bliss as long as A) they eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and B) they don't eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. They didn't agree to these conditions before being placed in the Garden--that's just the rules. Why is Knowledge and Eternal Life such a bad combination? YHWH doesn't say.

But as soon as they break the rule, they are cast out of the Garden, because YHWH is scared of them. Genesis 3;22 has God talking to his fellow pantheon, worried that A&E "are just like us!" They know Good from Evil, and they might live forever! So he kicks them out of their home to fend for themselves.

Except he's not worried that they'll live forever because he gave them eternal souls, saith the Christian, so that they will in fact live forever in some form or fashion. Very confusing.

But not only does YHWH let them die--some nine hundred years later--but he punishes their children, and their grandchildren, and every other human being that will ever live forever and ever, amen. Is that justice? If your great-grandfather robbed a bank, should you have your wages garnished for it?

But let's say A&E stayed away from the Fruit of Knowledge like good little obedient robots. Then what? They continue to live in the Garden free of cares, and moral decisions, and childbirth. Cain and Abel aren't born, because there's no way that A&E can reproduce. Paul tells us that by one man [Adam] death entered the world. Before they were created, nothing died. Every created plant and created animal just lived in statis--neither dying or reproducing, just stagnant existence, presumably for ever and ever. If plants and animals were capable of reproducing but nothing ever died, then eventually the world would be overcome with excessive life. The whole ecosystem would collapse.

Is that what YHWH intended? If it is, then I'm grateful to Adam and Eve for their disobedience. Bad rules issued by bad governors should be broken, sooner rather than later.
 
James Brown said:
You and I clearly didn't attend the same church.

Yes, there are things that distinguish mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. The reason for those differences varies among certain groups of people.

Most educated citizenry agree that physiological changes and emergent properties of increased cranial capacity led to these differences, like awareness of death, agriculture, and difficult childbirths. You and I clearly agree there.

Other people, however, think that these differences are because a man and woman opted for fruit salad one day, which made their caretaker mad. The apostle Paul includes himself in their ranks ("By one man, sin entered the world...") and many Christians, ancient and modern, toe the party line.

I'm glad you're not one of them. Although I still find it puzzling that the nature of the Biblical God is considered to be knowledge, given how grudging YHWH is in dispensing it. We're given Ten Commandments--one of them about not boiling veal in milk--but nothing like, "Thou shalt neither buy nor sell another person," or "Thou shalt wash thy hands before cooking, eating, or practicing healing."
Click to expand...
You can't write what you don't know, eh? I think its important to keep mythologies alive, and understand that the same story just isn't going to have the same meaning to every community or in every time. The ancient Hebrews conceived of some truths about our shared nature and sang about them in terms comprehensible to them. We can grasp the same truths, but it will have to be on our terms. Indeed, that is exactly what we do. Anyone who tells you they just read the Scriptures or the Bible or the Qur'an without personal, cultural, or generational bias is trying to sell you something.
 
Last edited:
Politesse said:
You can't write what you don't know, eh? I think its important to keep mythologies alive, and understand that the same story just isn't going to have the same meaning to every community or in every time. The ancient Hebrews conceived of some truths about our shared nature and sang about them in terms comprehensible to them. We can grasp the same truths, but it will have to be on our terms. Indeed, that is exactly what we do. Anyone who tells you they just read the Scriptures or the Bible or the Qur'an without personal, cultural, or generational bias is trying to sell you something.
Click to expand...

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom