A bit more of your merciful god.

[Blues Man]

What would you accept as sufficient proof? Perhaps you could tell us what would be convincing that manuscripts written thousands of years ago were divinely inspired. Be precise.

The proof is in the changed lives of those who hear and accept it. If you have a headache and I say, "This pill has been proven to give you relief from your pain. Take it and feel better", would you take it or would you demand to see something miraculous before believing that it would relieve your pain? No, you would probably say something like, "If millions of people have taken it and felt better, I believe it will work", and you'd take it. Billions of people throughout history have accepted the Bible's prescription for eternal life, and not just after we die, but now, and have experienced the changes it makes in their lives. They have seen the changes in their loved one's lives as well. You can't reduce God to a special effects trick to be trotted out on demand.

I see this all the time. I call it "do a trick" theology. Non-believers want to see something miraculous so they'll believe. Here's the problem with that. The original people did see something extraordinary, they saw the miracles that Yeshua did, they saw Him risen from the dead and ascending to Heaven. They saw the miracles the apostles did in His name as they preached. If God does a trick now to satisfy you, the very next generation that did not witness that trick will say about you the same things you say about those who saw what Yeshua and the apostles did, and they will demand their trick before they believe. God would be in the business of doing ever more tricks to satisfy a disbelieving people.

But the life advice in the bible can be found in other places. It was nothing new. The only new thing was that a deity was attached to it and that deity had the power to reward and punish those who didn't live as he told them to.

With an aspirin I can actually know the chemical make up of the compound and know exactly how it works in the body it isn't anything I have to take on someone else's word with no proof.

And why is it you think that removing all doubt would be a trick?

 

[Meriweather]

How do you know they were "inspired by " a god?

What is the difference between us as we read the account? Isn't it that you are looking for points that are common in other flood stories? And aren't you looking for a reason (or seeing a reason) to condemn God for an attack on the innocent?

 

[surada]

Why does that matter?

They must have been having litters of children to repopulate the earth in such a time frame.

 

[Blues Man]

Who wrote the account? Whose perspective? I believe a human wrote the account from the human perspective. I also believe the account was written after the fact....and with reflection.

1. In reflecting back, humans noted that before the flood, their worship of God was lacking. Not only that, they didn't bother with listening to God.

2. The author calls the attention to one man who did take time to listen. He makes a huge point in how he presents the account. If Noah was listening, what wasn't he doing that others were doing?

3. Besides not giving God proper due, what did the author see the people doing that he thought brought about their downfall?

Today, most of us understand the concept that a butterfly flaps its wings on one continent which puts things in motion to result in a disaster on another continent. What did the author say the people were doing that brought disaster down upon them? They saw the consequence, i.e., the flood. What were they doing that caused the disaster?

So they took a perfectly random natural disaster and having no other way to understand that disaster they attributed it to the fact that a god was upset with them.

We know that gods don't cause earthquakes, floods etc so why would you give a person who believed that because they were utterly ignorant of the physics of weather any credibility to the cause of a flood?

 

[Blues Man]

What is the difference between us as we read the account? Isn't it that you are looking for points that are common in other flood stories? And aren't you looking for a reason (or seeing a reason) to condemn God for an attack on the innocent?

I don;t believe any gods cause floods, or storms or rain or earthquakes or tornadoes etc etc etc

In fact we actually KNOW that they are not caused by gods.

 

[hadit]

But the life advice in the bible can be found in other places. It was nothing new. The only new thing was that a deity was attached to it and that deity had the power to reward and punish those who didn't live as he told them to.

With an aspirin I can actually know the chemical make up of the compound and know exactly how it works in the body it isn't anything I have to take on someone else's word with no proof.

And why is it you think that removing all doubt would be a trick?

Because anyone who did not witness what removed your doubt would say one of these things:

1. You're crazy.
2. It never happened. It was swamp gas, mass psychosis or hypnosis.
3. We don't know what really happened here, but there is a natural explanation for the whole thing, we just haven't figured it out yet.

If the event was repeated for everyone who didn't see it the first time, the excuse becomes, well, that just happens.

Man is very good at accepting what confirms his bias and ignoring what doesn't.

 

[Blues Man]

Because anyone who did not witness what removed your doubt would say one of these things:

1. You're crazy.
2. It never happened. It was swamp gas, mass psychosis or hypnosis.
3. We don't know what really happened here, but there is a natural explanation for the whole thing, we just haven't figured it out yet.

If the event was repeated for everyone who didn't see it the first time, the excuse becomes, well, that just happens.

Man is very good at accepting what confirms his bias and ignoring what doesn't.

So you also accept your own confirmation bias.

Right?

Maybe you attribute to a god things you just don;t understand.

 

[Hollie]

Exactly. The setting is a flood. How are the stories the same? How do they differ?

Nothing about the flood fable indicates it was intended to be anything but a literal rendering of history. Nothing in the Bible identifies the flood as parable or allegorical. Those are attributes applied by those who want to add their own interpretations.

 

[Meriweather]

The Bible says God sent the flood. Evidently that's what you're supposed to believe. I think they are just morality tales borrowed and adapted from other cultures.

Remember that people of the day--particularly those in Middle Eastern cultures, saw all that was happening as the will of God. They also believed in the total goodness of God and themselves as not so perfect. If they were hungry, if they lost a battle, if there was a natural disaster, they saw fault on their part. Also worth noting is that whenever anything good happened, the good was credited to God and the thanks went to God. Their part was conforming to the perfect will of God, which they saw as rooted in love and goodness.

Today, we know human (or even Godly) behavior has no effect on weather and natural disasters. When something in our lives go wrong, we are quick to give ourselves a pass and pass the responsibility along to someone--anyone--else. Not my fault, their fault, I am just the innocent bystander.

We are seeing this in how some in this culture read the Bible. Understandably, some today relate to the people, so the fault/responsibility belongs to God. We the people are innocent, so God must be guilty. Shrug.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, no.

In other words, you live in a culture that has a greater knowledge of science and know that weather and natural disasters have physical causes that come from our planet and its environment.

Knowing this, you know it was not God who deliberately sent a flood. Yet you still accuse Him. Why? When you know better?

 

[Meriweather]

Do you not believe god sends floods? That would suggest you don’t believe the Bible is true and factual.

I know God does not send floods. What I find as true and factual is the way the people responded when (and after) a disaster struck.

 

[Meriweather]

but I would not worship it.

Given God's existence, you would have no emotion towards God? You would simply dismiss God and go on as before?

 

[surada]

Remember that people of the day--particularly those in Middle Eastern cultures, saw all that was happening as the will of God. They also believed in the total goodness of God and themselves as not so perfect. If they were hungry, if they lost a battle, if there was a natural disaster, they saw fault on their part. Also worth noting is that whenever anything good happened, the good was credited to God and the thanks went to God. Their part was conforming to the perfect will of God, which they saw as rooted in love and goodness.

Today, we know human (or even Godly) behavior has no effect on weather and natural disasters. When something in our lives go wrong, we are quick to give ourselves a pass and pass the responsibility along to someone--anyone--else. Not my fault, their fault, I am just the innocent bystander.

We are seeing this in how some in this culture read the Bible. Understandably, some today relate to the people, so the fault/responsibility belongs to God. We the people are innocent, so God must be guilty. Shrug.

I do get exactly what you believe and I agree, but this is still what they teach.

 

[Meriweather]

You don’t believe that? If we are to believe the fables, your god created the planet. He created the peculiar tilt of the planet and the planet’s rotation. He created the atmosphere and convection currents when combined cause tornadoes. He must have known the consequences, right?

Was that just incompetent design or was the intention to remind us that being a disappointment could mean far worse?

This is a beautiful planet, suited for the intended purposes of both God and man. A spirit being could live here, no problem at all, but all decided upon a physical existence with all that entails.

 

[hadit]

So they took a perfectly random natural disaster and having no other way to understand that disaster they attributed it to the fact that a god was upset with them.

We know that gods don't cause earthquakes, floods etc so why would you give a person who believed that because they were utterly ignorant of the physics of weather any credibility to the cause of a flood?

Accept that they knew it was coming for over 100 years before it happened.

 

[Meriweather]

Do we accept that there is no supernatural father figure watching over us. Nature is unfeeling and unconcerned with gods, devils, angels, demons, spirits, etc., who are apparently much too busy with their petty feuds so naturalism managed to proliferate.

I know God loves us and cares for us. I also believe that we can grow and learn from our experiences in a physical body on a physical plane. And, we can also have fun here. Along with all of this, there is also a given we will experience tragedy and great sorrow--and perhaps great evil as well. I still would not avoid having this life.

 

[surada]

Accept that they knew it was coming for over 100 years before it happened.

According to the late Jewish version of the myth.

 

[Meriweather]

We know that gods don't cause earthquakes, floods etc so why would you give a person who believed that because they were utterly ignorant of the physics of weather any credibility to the cause of a flood?

As I said at the beginning, the flood is just the setting. In this setting the author had some points to make, which had nothing to do with discovering natural causes of floods and natural disasters. Could he have used another setting? Sure. But this was one people could easily picture in their minds. Who knows, it is also possible the author was comparing a watery flood to the personal floods going on.

 

[Hollie]

In other words, you live in a culture that has a greater knowledge of science and know that weather and natural disasters have physical causes that come from our planet and its environment.

Knowing this, you know it was not God who deliberately sent a flood. Yet you still accuse Him. Why? When you know better?

I think you’re missing some context. The Bible indicates an angry god sent a flood intending to wipe most of humanity from the planet. Nothing about that event in the Bible is indicated by the authors of the Bible to be anything but an actual event.

I don’t accuse any god(s) of anything as there is no evidence for any of them.

 

[hadit]

Given God's existence, you would have no emotion towards God? You would simply dismiss God and go on as before?

That doesn't really surprise me, and is in fact one of the reasons why I believe God does not do tricks to convince people of His existence. It's man's rebellion and pride that was his original sin and it is the root of sin today.