*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[bilby]

... The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

That's all I got for now. Thank you all who are contributing to this lovely thread. I wish that I had the time to correct you all : ) but I just don't have the time.

But I'll be back.

1i

Successfully proved?!? You've done nothing of the sort. You've rationalized a single absurdity from a pre-technology goat-herder myth. In so doing you have ignored key context contained in the rest of the myth. The myth is quite clear that:

• Yahweh spoke light into existence
• Yahweh then separated light from darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night."
• Once this was done "the evening and morning were the first day." Each subsequent day is referred to in the same way: the progression from evening to morning.
• On the 3rd such "day" Yahweh created "two great lights, one to rule the day, the other to rule the night."

The myth makes it quite clear that the bronze-age originators of this myth saw the sun and moon as lights that "ruled" their dominions (day and night) but did not realize the sun was the source of all the light experienced during the daylight portion of the earth's rotational period.

Hindsight's 20/20 as they say. They'd have written a better myth had they been better informed. In other news snakes don't talk and magical fruit trees don't make you smarter or make you live forever.

Der. It's still light in the daytime, even when it's overcast and you can't see the sun at all. So suggesting that the sun is the source of all daylight is absurd.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Der. It's still light in the daytime, even when it's overcast and you can't see the sun at all. So suggesting that the sun is the source of all daylight is absurd.

And there's enough light to read by well before it comes up, and after it sets, sobviously the light is only coincident with the sun.

 

[Learner]

That is silly reasoning. The "Iliad" has some sections that describe real events as does "Gone With the Wind". Do you really believe that since there is some truth in these books then everything in them is truth?

The theme of the theology seems to be consistent throughout. Jesus agrees and acknowledges the OT and all the prophets before HIM.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is silly reasoning. The "Iliad" has some sections that describe real events as does "Gone With the Wind". Do you really believe that since there is some truth in these books then everything in them is truth?

The theme of the theology seems to be consistent throughout. Jesus agrees and acknowledges the OT and all the prophets before HIM.

What does that have to do with whether the many Bible stories are true or why you would believe that the are? The six day creation? The talking snake? The worldwide flood and a six hundred year old Noah gathering animals from around the world? Jonah being swallowed by a great fish and living in the stomach for several days? The exodus from Egypt? Blowing trumpets causing Jericho's walls to collapse? Jesus rising from the dead? ETC. ETC.? Does the "The theme of the theology seems to be consistent throughout" mean to you that all these things are absolutely true?

 

[Learner]

Well, that damn holy spirit failed me. I was a "born again" Christian from the ages of 5 until the age of 18. I was the youngest person ever Baptized by dunking in my church's history. I had to convince the pastor that I was serious about my beliefs, and at the time I was, but I was only 7 or 8 years old. You can't blame a child for believing the things she is told by her parents and other adults. I used to witness to my little friends in elementary school, while they tried to convince me that Catholicism had all the answers.

I was a traditional Christian (heritage) at the age of 5 years and by the time I was 18, I had been influenced by other things (as you do at that age)losing interest in religion. I became a born-again after a realization to the gospels, much later, as often happens to born-agains who have lead different lives before then, and repent of their previous sins or bad habits. You were quite young but I' wouldn't doubt you not having anything at all, to repent for, especially in such a short time of your life back then at 5 years - to be "born-again".

In all those years, the holy spirit never even visited me. And, by the time I attended a very conservative Christian college, just down the road from Salem, Ma., where fundamentalist Christians burned witches back in the day, the things I had been taught all seemed insane. That's right. It took being around born againers 24/7 for a couple of months that helped me see the light. It was a tremendous relief once I realized that the horrible Bible god was just a myth.

Fundamentalists atheists and the fundamentalists religious can't be good in the world,...true, as we see in history. What happened to love your neibour as yourself etc.etc..? some Christians must be thinking about those "Christian" fundies.

It took me ten more years of careful thought, prayer, and study to become a full blown atheist. I thought at first that perhaps I had just been taught the wrong religion, but eventually I realized they were all myths. I've never felt as much inner peace as I have since being able to rid my brain of those horrible, childhood beliefs. After more than forty years, I'm still a better, happier person without religion.

It took me a few years to get at this stage, and I feel a similar thing, inner peace, no worries of the future where God is concerned.

I'm sorry Learner, but this thing that you call the holy spirit is just your imagination. If the HS was real, it would have spoken to me, because nobody wanted to know the truth more than I did. You think the holy spirit is talking to you, when in fact, it's just your own voice convincing you that impossible, irrational things are real. That's because it's what you want to believe. For some odd reason, you feel better or more comfortable believing these things. If you must believe, I hope these beliefs have made you a better, more charitable person because at least something positive has come from your conversion.

All I'll say here is: Your experience and what you find is not the same with everyone elses, although you're not alone of course.

 

[Learner]

You mean I replied with a strawman for a strawman?

You don't seem to understand what a "strawman" is.

Oh ok, I didn't get the context.

 

[bigfield]

No, that's poor reasoning. The Bible is a compilation of writings from various sources, so even if you trust one source it doesn't mean you should automatically trust the rest.

I would have thought that more the one source with the same theme would be more credible than a single source by one lone writer. Its easy to corrupt one source, so to speak.

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "corrupt". If you mean "corrupt" to mean that the Bible might contain copying error, then that makes it even more important to research and analyse each source independently of the others.

Secondly, you're on the right track with respect to "same theme", but it doesn't quite work like that. Multiple sources do lend credibility to each other when they recount the same claims, but only one book of the Bible gives an account of the flood.

Now, there are multiple accounts of a flood myth, but only one of them is in the Bible, and they differ in the details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

When you put \the various flood stories side by side, you see that the stories change depending on which culture the story belongs to, and this suggests that we're looking at variations on a folk tale, and the story in Genesis, starring Noah and Jehovah, is the Hebrew version of the story.

You're right. Bio-chemistry has already discovered that the flood story is false. We know that humans were never reduced to a single family, because geneticists can show that the human species has never had less than a few thousand people.

]And if we look at other parts of Genesis then we find that science has already demonstrated pretty soundly that Genesis is wrong in many ways.

How do you deal with the fact that science disagrees with the Bible?

Not so fast.. the nights is still young, in an ongoing process.

No, don't stick your head in the sand and ignore science when it doesn't give you the answer you want.

 

[Learner]

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "corrupt". If you mean "corrupt" to mean that the Bible might contain copying error, then that makes it even more important to research and analyse each source independently of the others.

Secondly, you're on the right track with respect to "same theme", but it doesn't quite work like that. Multiple sources do lend credibility to each other when they recount the same claims, but only one book of the Bible gives an account of the flood.

If it was "made up" from the beginning as a single source then it would seem more likely and easier to maintain a false history than it would, by various sources with the same theology theme and characters.

Now, there are multiple accounts of a flood myth, but only one of them is in the Bible, and they differ in the details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

When you put \the various flood stories side by side, you see that the stories change depending on which culture the story belongs to, and this suggests that we're looking at variations on a folk tale, and the story in Genesis, starring Noah and Jehovah, is the Hebrew version of the story.

The flood story is "world wide" and yes the story may vary depending on the locations but some of the various stories would also be a little similar too.

No, don't stick your head in the sand and ignore science when it doesn't give you the answer you want.

Hey I agree about the ignore bit, I am simply saying don't make the conclusion ...relying on what could be updated tomorrow, so to speak, which I believe is ususally the case so far.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't know what Now, there are multiple accounts of a flood myth, but only one of them is in the Bible, and they differ in the details.

The bible book is chock full of urban legends.

 

[bigfield]

If it was "made up" from the beginning as a single source then it would seem more likely and easier to maintain a false history than it would, by various sources with the same theology theme and characters.

I don't really understand what you're saying, here. It's pretty normal to see the same mythological stories repeated across multiple cultures but with different details. We continue to do this with modern storytelling; we take existing stories and retell them with different details.

The flood story is "world wide" and yes the story may vary depending on the locations but some of the various stories would also be a little similar too.

Yes, the various versions of the Mesopotamian flood myth all share several broad details, and there are also versions that aren't from Mesopotamia, although these aren't as similar as the versions from Mesopotamia.

The question you should ask yourself is this: why do you think the Hebrew version of the story is the one that gets the details right?

No, don't stick your head in the sand and ignore science when it doesn't give you the answer you want.

Hey I agree about the ignore bit, I am simply saying don't make the conclusion ...relying on what could be updated tomorrow, so to speak, which I believe is ususally the case so far.

You are basically saying you don't trust science.

Earlier in the thread you wrote:

I believe archeology and bio-chemistry (mostly) will potentialy get there before the physicists, bringing us closer to some conclusion.

You can't have it both ways, only acknowledging science when it agrees with your existing beliefs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can't have it both ways, only acknowledging science when it agrees with your existing beliefs.

They can't call it fake science because all religion is in principle precisely that. Religions look to explain things but when an explanation contradicts some other belief then the science isn't correct anymore. Quite a convenient dogmatic arrangement.

People cannot levitate and fly away into the sky. That's a solid scientific conclusion based on every human observation ever made. But if I believe in fake science, i.e. religion, people can fly around and anything is possible. It must be comforting in some sense to pretend to such a degree. I don't know what else could promote such irrational behavior.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean I replied with a strawman for a strawman?

You don't seem to understand what a "strawman" is.

Oh ok, I didn't get the context.

Yeah, that seems to be your theme.

 

[Sarpedon]

We never claimed it was all 'made up' by the same person or source.

Our claim is that it is a mixed collection of stories, some of which are entirely fabricated, and some are biased histories, and some are not meant to be factual at all.

 

[Learner]

Oh ok, I didn't get the context.

Yeah, that seems to be your theme.

If you have the time to spare, could you kindly lay it out in laymans terms so I can try and answer accordingly. Cheers!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You can't have it both ways, only acknowledging science when it agrees with your existing beliefs.

They can't call it fake science because all religion is in principle precisely that. Religions look to explain things but when an explanation contradicts some other belief then the science isn't correct anymore. Quite a convenient dogmatic arrangement.

People cannot levitate and fly away into the sky. That's a solid scientific conclusion based on every human observation ever made. But if I believe in fake science, i.e. religion, people can fly around and anything is possible. It must be comforting in some sense to pretend to such a degree. I don't know what else could promote such irrational behavior.

Transcendental meditation has been peddling promises of training to levitate for years now. Oh, and walking through walls. Some practitioners have achieved impressive butt bouncing talents if not levitation. Scientology has peddled some similar promises. People still but into this crap.

 

[Rhea]

The Narrative of the Flood is in the Jewish scriptures. Oddly enough, most Jewish people don't believe it is a historical event. Yet, they still manage to keep the faith.

Still a tradition yes, for these people, Christians are often told its "Picking and choosing" if ever they disgard a part here or there..

This is definitely a spot that Christians choose to inhabit wedged firmly between a rock and a hard place.

Yup. They have this bible. It’s FROM GOD and so yeah, they have to either believe in god wholly, or they go to hell, right?

But on the other hand, when they try to convince other people that it is wholly true, they realize how full of holes it is. And/or how inhumane it is. So they don’t want to believe all of it. But that makes their bible so... human and not godly at all.

Tough spot to be in, for sure. But unavoidable if you want your book to be a “bible,” innit. Either you believe shit or you’re a shit believer. And the only way out of your pickle is to stop being “a believer” altogether.

That is indeed a tough pickle between a rock and a hard place.
But that’s not our problem, we’re just observing you in it.
So, yup; Christians are often told that because they are trying to maintain a fiction and it’s pretty obvious that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[abaddon]

I think they should pick and choose. And eventually, if their brains can manage it, see that it's mythology. Which isn't necessarily a synonym of "false".

Learner says it's atheists that will criticize about "picking and choosing", but that's due to the false dilemma that fundies make for themselves. All or nothing...

God might exist AND the Bible is wrong. Or, the Bible's partly right, and God might exist (or might not). There are other possibilities than the all-or-nothing dichotomy.

Atheists come across as only just appalled by the Bible; maybe some see nothing redeemable in it. But that's from seeing it with the lens provided to them by fundamentalists. I read the Bible's tales and think "some of these are wonderful myths" and can easily see ways they'd potentially inform a person's life as myths (symbolic expressions of the human psyche). But then along come fundies and present their idiotic literalism. Tragically that seems to be the dominant view. They say the dumbest things a human can say and I wonder "Why?!" Why do they put themselves at odds with all reality just because they can't see an old book as an old book, with some psychological wisdom in it if you dig under the surface details?

So, what I'm saying is: when they see atheists going "this stuff doesn't make any sense!", that response is to their fundy notions about "the Word" having to be the incontrovertible truth about earth's history. But the notion "it's either all true" or else you must "convert" to atheism is not correct. There is a middle way that's an option for them, if their brains could manage it. It takes thinking in less black/white simplistic terms.

 

[steve_bank]

We debated the flood story ad nauseum with multiple academic refernces showing how Hebrew scibes modified existing flood myths. It is really not academcly in question.

All ancient cultures invented deities nad mysth ti suoport a collective cultural narrative.

Egyptian rulers are a well known example.

Lessor known are the Asian and Chinese rulers who also invented creation and god myths.

If you look up from the bible and look at global history and cultures the ancient Hebrews were not unique.

Here in the USA we have our own myths. Our iconic Pilgrims came here looking for freedom and quickly set up an intolerant culture. They were fleeing other Christians not atheists or Muslims.

The Thanksgiving gathering between Pilgrims and Native Americans never ereally happened, at least as it is portrayed.


The George Washington cheery tree tale is mystical.

The image of the 19th century rugged American out in the wilderness was largely created by fiction writers of the day. The tale of Custer as a hero is largely fictional. He massacred a defenseless village and it was turned into a heroic battle that brought him to the fore. There was nothing heroic about the last stand, he was stupid and arrogant.

Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster.

Ancient aliens.

Did all native Americans act like wooden cutouts and shout all the time like in the movies?

In the bible

Joshua blows down a fortess with a horn
Davis and Goliath
The flood
The Ark as a weapon
Abraham walking and talking with god
The burning bush
Etc...

Myths to support a cultural history.

Netanyahu as PM of Israel is a Jewish fundamentalist. He believes Jews have a god given right to Israel, it says so in the bible. Again myth that supports a current narrative. As true today as it was when the myths were written.

 

[1ICrying]

(Earth goes around the sun each day? Really? Duuuude.)

Rhea, whether the earth goes around the sun or dips behind the moon, that was not the point. The point is that I successfully proved my point that the six days of creation story is symbolic - you cannot have 'days' (of the 24 hour variety) without planets and stars.

Congratulations on your success. The Jewish will be proud that you were able to demonstrate that the First Story of Creation is symbolic.

When you get back, maybe you can prove to us that the Narrative of the Flood was just a story.

Thank you Jimmy.

I am not sure if the Flood story is symbolic or really took place. I could see it going either way. Is there scientific proof of a world wide flood? Some here say no, but if not, maybe they just haven't found it yet.

 

[1ICrying]

Here's a thought. For the atheists. If not God, then what? Do you guys all believe that there was just this big explosion, rocks and random stuff went flying out, and then, given a billion years, everything just fell into place, by accident. I think not. After a billion years, a rock is still a rock. You are not explaining the part about the spark of life. Where did that originate? You are not explaining the part about the code (ie. DNA; laws of mathmatics and physics) that was obviously planted into everything to make it work. Where did that code come from? I say God.

I can't wrap my head around the possibility that some supernatural creature commonly known as god, always existed and had the power to create a universe and somehow magically started life. That is just crazy talk. I don't pretend to have all the answers but just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean that I'm going to believe some primitive concept such as god did it! And, where did this god come from and why hasn't she spoken to me? And, if you must have a god belief, how do you know that you chose the right one?

Why do you need this mythology? What does it do for you? I have had a lovely, interesting life without it. I've overcome many challenges during my youth. I have personally benefitted from a stressful but rewarding career as a nurse, as it gave me experiences with all kinds of people that I would never have otherwise had the opportunity to know. Now that I'm retired, I have more time to socialize with good people, and sometimes, I experience the joy of helping friends in need. There is nothing better than that. It's better than having material things. It's better than being the most intelligent person in the room. No gods are required to live a happy, life full of joy!

And, if I was capable of having a god belief, I certainly wouldn't choose the Christian god. It would have to be a much kinder, more emotionally stable god who didn't judge her creation harshly for not recognizing her existence. The god of the Bible is an immoral mythological creature. He is angry and vengeful. He demands that his people obey him, regardless of how wicked his requests are. He commits mass murder and denies women equality with men. He is disgusting, but then again, he's just a myth based on an ancient culture. Assuming that Jesus is the god of the NT, he is sometimes nicer than the OT god, but there are times when he too can be a real asshole. He preaches love and tolerance on the one hand, but then threatens to punish those who don't worship him on the other hand, assuming you believe that the KJV of the Bible is the most correct one. He tells people that as long as they ask forgiveness, it doesn't matter what terrible things they have done in the past. How insane is that? These Bible gods appear to suffer from psychopathy. Fortunately, they are just pretend, like Zeus or any of the gods from other myths. Why can't you see that, when it's so obvious to me!

There are religious people who dedicate their lives to promoting social justice. I have a lot of respect for them. They don't try to convince others to believe like them. They simply set an example for others, as to what it means to be a good person. They cherry pick the most positive aspects of their mythos. They realize that giving is usually more joyful and satisfying that receiving. If they need a god myth to motivate them, I won't judge them for that because a person's character is what is important to me.

That's my Sunday sermon.

16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.…


I post this in response to your line that Jesus is an asshole who is punishing people. He was sent here to save, not condemn. And his salvation is open to anyone who seeks it. I know God didn't talk to you. He doesn't talk to me either, but we have the Bible - right there, full of his message. I know most of you reading here think that the Bible is BS, but that's just what the Bible predicts - not everyone will believe.

I am here as a testimony, one of the 33% on this planet, who do believe. I thought that I could come here and try to get some of you unbelievers over to the believing side. Actually, originally, I wanted to kind of practice with you here before I attempted to do that with my non-believer friends.

22And indeed, have mercy on those who doubt; 23save others by snatching them from the fire;

Until then though, I don't talk with anyone about any of this except for here on this thread. I have learned very much about what you atheists believe, and why, and I thank you for sharing. I guess I will continue to try and flog my side of the story - the believer's side. I do have a happy life, and I hope that you are having good live's too. I don't need the 'god myth' as you say, Sohy, but I am one who honestly truly believes the message of the Bible. I find it a joy to believe. I don't see God as angry or terrible, but like a loving father who ever so patiently develops us. I also trust that ultimately God will deal with all of us, with perfect justice and love.