A few questions for the fundies

[Meriweather]

Ok, a lot of people here at least, think that the bible can be interpreted any number of ways. So my question is, why is MY interpretation of the bible wrong by everyone here, I mean, if everyone else has their own interpretation, and consider each one valid, why not mine? God, by what I read in the bible made everything in the universe, including cancer, disease... and raped a virgin to have a zombie child and murdered nearly all of humanity in a flood. Either accept it or then your version isn't acceptable either. Which is it?

In an earlier post I pointed out that both fundamentalists and atheists habitually insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis, including the Great Flood. A curiosity worthy of the follow-up question: Why do polar opposites use the same interpretation?

Intent and motive matters. What is the purpose for taking a literal view?

For the Fundamentalist, the intent is to be in awe of power, goodness, and justice of God. As I pointed out earlier, this is the theme of the story. Fundamentalists may be poor scientists, but their hearts are determined to preserve the glory of God. To them I say, God's glory remains constant--it is not dependent on the weather or other events. Truth is unafraid of science.

Would you agree that a common atheist intent is to present God in a bad light with the intent of persuading oneself and others that there is no need spend any time in life in worship or in any effort to perfect oneself in emulation of the love, goodness, and justice of a Supreme Being?

Intent matters, it matters a lot. Various interpretations are always interesting. More fascinating are the motives. Fundamentalists and Atheists: Same interpretation, polar opposite motive and intent.

 

[Taz]

God IS a mass murderer, he drowned nearly everyone in the Flood, IN CHAPTER ONE!!!!!

Fucking with you about being a Nazi was pure gravy.

He had the authority to do just that.

Authority or not, your god is still a mass murderer, and you don't even deny it, so simply say that he's allowed to do that. Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now let's move on to the rape of the virgin and the zombie child they had...

At least you're coming around to admit God has authority you don't.

No, it's ok, I get that, god has more power than I do. But at least you acknowledge that your god is a mass murderer and uses his power for evil, like murder and rape.

Idiot.

Maybe, but you still couldn't dispute what I said. Josef.

 

[Taz]

So I'll ask again, how do I know what god wants? ...

You know it. You know exactly what gods expects you to do. Your problem is the problem which everyone else has with you too: How are you able to trust in yourself, Nazi? Not at all, isn't it? You use words like weapons. But to kill someone with words makes nothing alive.

So you want me to keep up with the Nazi stuff, or are you going to cut it out as well?

As for what god wants, you obviously have no fucking clue whatsoever, or does god want you to call people "Nazi" all the time?

You convinced me with all your might that you are a Nazi - what can I say? You was successful. You won the first price in extreme idiotic behavior - called "the little Adolf".

Hey, at least you didn't dispute the fact that you don't know what god wants. Carry on, you sad little kraut.

no comment

Ya, you gerrys know when you're beat now. Good for you.

 

[Taz]

So the baby that's born severely deformed and retarded is guilty of what exactly? And you call that perfect?

Do you even read what I write before erupting emotionally? What God created was perfect until we messed it up. I'll type this slowly. That means it's no longer perfect.

So god made a perfect creation and then made puny humans whom he allowed to fuck up his creation, so he got mad and punished us with deformity, disease and retardation of several forms. That's totally ridiculous and childish, lol.

Yeah, little children don't like being punished.

It's childish OF GOD to do that. Or is your non-answer actually a concession?

You have no more standing to accuse God than does a three year old throwing a tantrum because he can't have a treat he saw in a store can accuse his parents. For the record, not childish at all. Sin is serious business, as everyone will find out.

What about god's sin? Not serious?

 

[Taz]

God IS a mass murderer, he drowned nearly everyone in the Flood, IN CHAPTER ONE!!!!!

Fucking with you about being a Nazi was pure gravy.

He had the authority to do just that.

Authority or not, your god is still a mass murderer, and you don't even deny it, so simply say that he's allowed to do that. Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now let's move on to the rape of the virgin and the zombie child they had...

At least you're coming around to admit God has authority you don't.

No, it's ok, I get that, god has more power than I do. But at least you acknowledge that your god is a mass murderer and uses his power for evil, like murder and rape.

I do not. That is your thought, not mine.

You know it, that's good enough for me that you said he's allowed to kill. Comedy gold!

 

[Taz]

Ok, a lot of people here at least, think that the bible can be interpreted any number of ways. So my question is, why is MY interpretation of the bible wrong by everyone here, I mean, if everyone else has their own interpretation, and consider each one valid, why not mine? God, by what I read in the bible made everything in the universe, including cancer, disease... and raped a virgin to have a zombie child and murdered nearly all of humanity in a flood. Either accept it or then your version isn't acceptable either. Which is it?

In an earlier post I pointed out that both fundamentalists and atheists habitually insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis, including the Great Flood. A curiosity worthy of the follow-up question: Why do polar opposites use the same interpretation?

Intent and motive matters. What is the purpose for taking a literal view?

For the Fundamentalist, the intent is to be in awe of power, goodness, and justice of God. As I pointed out earlier, this is the theme of the story. Fundamentalists may be poor scientists, but their hearts are determined to preserve the glory of God. To them I say, God's glory remains constant--it is not dependent on the weather or other events. Truth is unafraid of science.

Would you agree that a common atheist intent is to present God in a bad light with the intent of persuading oneself and others that there is no need spend any time in life in worship or in any effort to perfect oneself in emulation of the love, goodness, and justice of a Supreme Being?

Intent matters, it matters a lot. Various interpretations are always interesting. More fascinating are the motives. Fundamentalists and Atheists: Same interpretation, polar opposite motive and intent.

I am certainly not "trying" to paint god in a bad light, the bible does that in spades. Don't blame the messenger.

You accept your own interpretation of the bible but reject everyone else's.

As for worshipping a supreme being that is "the love, goodness, and justice", so if you ever find one, please let me know. Ok?

 

[Meriweather]

I am certainly not "trying" to paint god in a bad light, the bible does that in spades. Don't blame the messenger.

You accept your own interpretation of the bible but reject everyone else's.

As for worshipping a supreme being that is "the love, goodness, and justice", so if you ever find one, please let me know. Ok?

1. God is love, goodness, and justice. Now you know.
2. More accurately, I interpret the Bible in many ways and have done so for many years. I am interested in the many perceptions of God.
3. What is the motive for your interpretation?

 

[hadit]

Do you even read what I write before erupting emotionally? What God created was perfect until we messed it up. I'll type this slowly. That means it's no longer perfect.

So god made a perfect creation and then made puny humans whom he allowed to fuck up his creation, so he got mad and punished us with deformity, disease and retardation of several forms. That's totally ridiculous and childish, lol.

Yeah, little children don't like being punished.

It's childish OF GOD to do that. Or is your non-answer actually a concession?

You have no more standing to accuse God than does a three year old throwing a tantrum because he can't have a treat he saw in a store can accuse his parents. For the record, not childish at all. Sin is serious business, as everyone will find out.

What about god's sin? Not serious?

There is none. As you have acknowledged, God has authority you do not.

 

[hadit]

He had the authority to do just that.

Authority or not, your god is still a mass murderer, and you don't even deny it, so simply say that he's allowed to do that. Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now let's move on to the rape of the virgin and the zombie child they had...

At least you're coming around to admit God has authority you don't.

No, it's ok, I get that, god has more power than I do. But at least you acknowledge that your god is a mass murderer and uses his power for evil, like murder and rape.

I do not. That is your thought, not mine.

You know it, that's good enough for me that you said he's allowed to kill. Comedy gold!

Ah, but as I have shown, an executioner carrying out the order of the court is not a murderer, nor is a solider carrying out the orders of his superiors on the battlefield, nor would you be if you defended your home against invasion by assailants.

Why are you pretending that all killing is murder? I know, but I'm curious what your excuse will be.

 

[Taz]

I am certainly not "trying" to paint god in a bad light, the bible does that in spades. Don't blame the messenger.

You accept your own interpretation of the bible but reject everyone else's.

As for worshipping a supreme being that is "the love, goodness, and justice", so if you ever find one, please let me know. Ok?

1. God is love, goodness, and justice. Now you know.
2. More accurately, I interpret the Bible in many ways and have done so for many years. I am interested in the many perceptions of God.
3. What is the motive for your interpretation?

I just look at the facts. And what's written in the bible is facts for your god. No matter how you interpret the flood story, it's about a god who drowns most of his creation on purpose. You can interpret that as a story about anything you want, but the facts are is that they used that specific story of a murdering god to convey their message, if you say that the real message isn't actually the one written.

 

[Taz]

So god made a perfect creation and then made puny humans whom he allowed to fuck up his creation, so he got mad and punished us with deformity, disease and retardation of several forms. That's totally ridiculous and childish, lol.

Yeah, little children don't like being punished.

It's childish OF GOD to do that. Or is your non-answer actually a concession?

You have no more standing to accuse God than does a three year old throwing a tantrum because he can't have a treat he saw in a store can accuse his parents. For the record, not childish at all. Sin is serious business, as everyone will find out.

What about god's sin? Not serious?

There is none. As you have acknowledged, God has authority you do not.

Ok, you're fine worshipping a mass murdering god. Nothing I can do about that. Interesting though how people can do that and claim the moral high ground at the same time. Quite the delusion!

 

[Taz]

Authority or not, your god is still a mass murderer, and you don't even deny it, so simply say that he's allowed to do that. Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now let's move on to the rape of the virgin and the zombie child they had...

At least you're coming around to admit God has authority you don't.

No, it's ok, I get that, god has more power than I do. But at least you acknowledge that your god is a mass murderer and uses his power for evil, like murder and rape.

I do not. That is your thought, not mine.

You know it, that's good enough for me that you said he's allowed to kill. Comedy gold!

Ah, but as I have shown, an executioner carrying out the order of the court is not a murderer, nor is a solider carrying out the orders of his superiors on the battlefield, nor would you be if you defended your home against invasion by assailants.

Why are you pretending that all killing is murder? I know, but I'm curious what your excuse will be.

So god was only carrying out someone else's order with the Flood? Whose?

Killing nearly all of humanity isn't murder in your book? WOW! Just WOW!!

Hitler and Stalin must be lightweights in your book.

 

[Meriweather]

I just look at the facts. And what's written in the bible is facts for your god. No matter how you interpret the flood story, it's about a god who drowns most of his creation on purpose. You can interpret that as a story about anything you want, but the facts are is that they used that specific story of a murdering god to convey their message, if you say that the real message isn't actually the one written.

You are not looking at facts.

What did the author know about God before he wrote the story? What did the audience know about God before they heard the story? You are looking at a story with your own preconceived ideas about God--your ideas, not the author's idea, nor the ideas of the original audience. Yet, from that story, you conclude you know all about God. That is like me reading Jack and the Beanstalk and concluding I know all about selling a cow. To truly know how to sell a cow, one must first gain some first-hand experience in selling cows. The same is true when getting to know God.

I'm still interested in your intent behind your interpretation.

 

[Meriweather]

So god was only carrying out someone else's order with the Flood? Whose?

Killing nearly all of humanity isn't murder in your book? WOW! Just WOW!!

Hitler and Stalin must be lightweights in your book.

In my studies a question was posed that if it had been God's intent to wipe out evil in civilization, what about babies. The question had to be answered from knowledge already given, ie. that God is good, just, and loving.

The analogy used was that of a gardener. Imagine a shrub in the garden that is taking over, yet much of its growth is sickly or decayed. It is also misshapen. After looking at this shrub, the gardener decides to raze it to the ground. This does not harm the basic root system. The shrub will renew itself and the plant will grow back, but without the decay. And, its shape will be entirely different. As a gardener, I've done this with a few shrubs and have been delighted with the renewed shrub and the end results. But what about leaves or buds that were just forming on the original shrub? They were just babies! How mean I was! Remember, my concern was not with individual leaves and buds. My concern was the entire shrub and its place in the garden. The renewed shrub would produce leaves and buds--and much healthier ones.

This was an argument for why The Great Flood story could, with proper understanding, be taken literally. God's concern had to be with the population in its entirety. For the entire future population to be strong and healthy, the original growth had to be razed.

Could it have happened this way? Certainly. However I lean more towards interpretations where any great flood is a natural disaster--not an act of God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What God created was perfect until we messed it up

"We".... ?

 

[Taz]

I just look at the facts. And what's written in the bible is facts for your god. No matter how you interpret the flood story, it's about a god who drowns most of his creation on purpose. You can interpret that as a story about anything you want, but the facts are is that they used that specific story of a murdering god to convey their message, if you say that the real message isn't actually the one written.

You are not looking at facts.

What did the author know about God before he wrote the story? What did the audience know about God before they heard the story? You are looking at a story with your own preconceived ideas about God--your ideas, not the author's idea, nor the ideas of the original audience. Yet, from that story, you conclude you know all about God. That is like me reading Jack and the Beanstalk and concluding I know all about selling a cow. To truly know how to sell a cow, one must first gain some first-hand experience in selling cows. The same is true when getting to know God.

I'm still interested in your intent behind your interpretation.

My intent is to get to the truth behind the bible. You make up your own interpretation of it and then reject mine. I’ve studied the bible enough to know it, yet because I don’t agree with your interpretation, you say I know nothing. Well guess what? You don’t know more than I do, and your version isn’t any more valid than mine. So suck it up, princess, I’m right.

 

[Taz]

So god was only carrying out someone else's order with the Flood? Whose?

Killing nearly all of humanity isn't murder in your book? WOW! Just WOW!!

Hitler and Stalin must be lightweights in your book.

In my studies a question was posed that if it had been God's intent to wipe out evil in civilization, what about babies. The question had to be answered from knowledge already given, ie. that God is good, just, and loving.

The analogy used was that of a gardener. Imagine a shrub in the garden that is taking over, yet much of its growth is sickly or decayed. It is also misshapen. After looking at this shrub, the gardener decides to raze it to the ground. This does not harm the basic root system. The shrub will renew itself and the plant will grow back, but without the decay. And, its shape will be entirely different. As a gardener, I've done this with a few shrubs and have been delighted with the renewed shrub and the end results. But what about leaves or buds that were just forming on the original shrub? They were just babies! How mean I was! Remember, my concern was not with individual leaves and buds. My concern was the entire shrub and its place in the garden. The renewed shrub would produce leaves and buds--and much healthier ones.

This was an argument for why The Great Flood story could, with proper understanding, be taken literally. God's concern had to be with the population in its entirety. For the entire future population to be strong and healthy, the original growth had to be razed.

Could it have happened this way? Certainly. However I lean more towards interpretations where any great flood is a natural disaster--not an act of God.

So a natural disaster killed everyone on earth except Noah’s gang? That’s what you think?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don’t know more than I do, and your version isn’t any more valid than mine.

Correct, it isnt. In fact, nobody's is more valid than anyone else's.

 

[Meriweather]

My intent is to get to the truth behind the bible. You make up your own interpretation of it and then reject mine. I’ve studied the bible enough to know it, yet because I don’t agree with your interpretation, you say I know nothing. Well guess what? You don’t know more than I do, and your version isn’t any more valid than mine. So suck it up, princess, I’m right.

Perhaps it will surprise you to remember that I have not offered my interpretation of the Bible or even of the story of The Great Flood. Instead, I've shared different approaches used in studying any ancient writing. I've used facts--i.e., The Great Flood is a story, not a newspaper or encyclopedic listing of facts. Second, since it is a story, it helps to identify its theme. Third, who was the original audience, and what was the author's purpose in relating the story. Fourth, I've agreed there are many interpretations, and because of this take the next step into discerning personal motives behind personal interpretations.

It would be very unlike me and even more unusual for me to tell another poster that they know nothing. Where did I say this, so I can go back and correct the comment and issue you an apology.

I suspect I do know more about The Great Flood and its various interpretations than you. So what, so what if I'm a Bible nerd who has had time to make a study of many of its stories. That's no more important than knowing which of us may have spent more time outdoors today. Neither matters a whit in the great scheme of things. At the moment, my interest is in your interpretation, and how a person who seems to be interested in science isn't at all interested in presenting information on why The Great Flood cannot have been global. And also, how and why an atheist came to believe in an evil God.

 

[Meriweather]

So a natural disaster killed everyone on earth except Noah’s gang? That’s what you think?

No.