Does God Exist?

[Hollie]

For arguments sake, Genesis is allegory but the flood is literally true. Is that perspective true or false? If you tell me it’s true and the gods disagree, I’m going to Hell?

What is the literal interpretation of the flood? In Hebrew, the earth was covered. In modern English, the planet was covered. The earth in my backyard is sometimes flooded. Very different from the Earth being flooded.

Love God (or the ways of goodness and love if one cannot believe in a Supreme Being); love your fellowman. If we concentrate on these two issues, we will be fine. The lessons we should learn from the flood are far apart from the lesson of whether the earth was covered or whether the Earth was covered. Neither has anything to do with the lessons of the story.

Why would I love the Christian gods when they have brutalized humanity and threaten to do it again.

 

[Meriweather]

The god of the Old Testament was pretty vicious.

Not to mention insecure, egotistical and envious

This is a poor understanding of the Old Testament, which is based on the perspective/understanding of modern day culture, language, and history. What one gets from reading the Old Testament if far from what one might get if one actually studies it (including its history, culture, and language).

 

[Blues Man]

In terms of perspective, how fast and loose can I play with interpretation of the Bible before I cross that threshold of correct vs, false interpretation or perspective?

The foundation of the Bible: Love God, love one's fellow man. The rest is commentary.

So..... we can dismiss all of Genesis, all of the flood as not just commentary but superfluous?

What other portions of the Bible are commentary?

I suppose we can dismiss the god of the Old Teastament because he killed people left and right because he was offended.

 

[Blues Man]

The god of the Old Testament was pretty vicious.

Not to mention insecure, egotistical and envious

This is a poor understanding of the Old Testament, which is based on the perspective/understanding of modern day culture, language, and history. What one gets from reading the Old Testament if far from what one might get if one actually studies it (including its history, culture, and language).

So the killing of all those people was what? Fiction?

The god of the Old Testament had no problem killing and torturing the people he supposedly created and loved when they didn't do what he said.

 

[Meriweather]

No religion tells you that you will live forever in paradise if you do the things necessary to earn a god's conditional love.

That is a safety net.

Not what I learned from religion.

I know there is no eternal reward, no afterlife in paradise. I know there is no supernatural safety net.

Life is eternal.

 

[Hollie]

For arguments sake, Genesis is allegory but the flood is literally true. Is that perspective true or false? If you tell me it’s true and the gods disagree, I’m going to Hell?

What is the literal interpretation of the flood? In Hebrew, the earth was covered. In modern English, the planet was covered. The earth in my backyard is sometimes flooded. Very different from the Earth being flooded.

Love God (or the ways of goodness and love if one cannot believe in a Supreme Being); love your fellowman. If we concentrate on these two issues, we will be fine. The lessons we should learn from the flood are far apart from the lesson of whether the earth was covered or whether the Earth was covered. Neither has anything to do with the lessons of the story.

There are others who claim that the planet was flooded. The Bible identifies the planet was flooded. We’re driving around that Cul-de-Sac of interpretation.

Who is correct?

 

[Meriweather]

What other portions of the Bible are commentary?

As I said...all of it. The rest is anecdotal and goes back to either loving God or loving one's fellowman. Enjoyable reading and it has some amazing advice.

 

[Meriweather]

Why would I love the Christian gods when they have brutalized humanity and threaten to do it again.

Why cling to that understanding? Usually good comes with the bad. How many of us see God (and what we want to emulate) is that He brings good where there is bad. Have you ever been able to take a bad situation and make it better?

 

[Meriweather]

I suppose we can dismiss the god of the Old Teastament because he killed people left and right because he was offended.

Or actually study the Old Testament and gain a truer understanding.

 

[Hollie]

What other portions of the Bible are commentary?

As I said...all of it. The rest is anecdotal and goes back to either loving God or loving one's fellowman. Enjoyable reading and it has some amazing advice.

I dont know. The siege of Jericho may or may not have been anecdotal, (who decides?), but there wasn’t a lot of love going on there.

 

[Meriweather]

So the killing of all those people was what? Fiction?

The god of the Old Testament had no problem killing and torturing the people he supposedly created and loved when they didn't do what he said.

One thing to understand about ancient man's understanding of God (whether that man be Chinese or Jewish) is that everything is God's will. Then remember that simply because all is God's will, it was not interpreted that God set out with a sword or a lightening bolt to smite. God was not seen as a puppet master...He simply provided the stage for both puppets and puppet masters.

 

[Hollie]

Why would I love the Christian gods when they have brutalized humanity and threaten to do it again.

Why cling to that understanding? Usually good comes with the bad. How many of us see God (and what we want to emulate) is that He brings good where there is bad. Have you ever been able to take a bad situation and make it better?

Sure. I have been able to take a bad situation and make it better. The reverse has happened. Those were a function of decisions I made with the information I had at the time. I have no reason to believe that the gods were involved in any of that.

 

[alang1216]

Your interpretation is as valid as anyone's but you must know there are nearly as many interpretations of this line as there are Christian sects.

Yes. Keep in mind it is not 'my' interpretation. You will find the same presented in many Catholic and some Protestant commentaries. Where you will probably not find it is in the Christian denominations who believe everything in the Bible is strictly literal. It is good to remember that the latter are a very vocal minority. Why doesn't the majority speak up? Because we don't see a huge problem with people taking the Bible literally. Those who study science, culture, history, and language along with the Bible have a much different perspective, but nor do we have the trouble atheists seem to have with others taking it from a literal perspective.

This is a majority Christian country so when Christians, majority or minority, attempt to make their interpretation of the Bible the law of the land, they will get push back from non-Christians and atheists. Abortion, evolution, and gay marriage are recent examples. I know these are all sincere beliefs held by Christians (and others of course) but they are encouraged by their churches and that is an image that rankles the rest of us.

 

[Meriweather]

There are others who claim that the planet was flooded. The Bible identifies the planet was flooded. We’re driving around that Cul-de-Sac of interpretation.

Who is correct?

I go with those who understand the original Hebrew. A man of the Jewish faith once pointed out the Hebrew for the entire globe, and the Hebrew for earth, or what was seen from horizon to horizon. Apparently the Biblical flood was widespread enough that it was what to those in that vicinity was a world-wide event (meaning horizon to horizon).

However, as the story isn't even about how much of the planet was covered (or not covered), this detail doesn't even matter.

 

[Hollie]

There are others who claim that the planet was flooded. The Bible identifies the planet was flooded. We’re driving around that Cul-de-Sac of interpretation.

Who is correct?

I go with those who understand the original Hebrew. A man of the Jewish faith once pointed out the Hebrew for the entire globe, and the Hebrew for earth, or what was seen from horizon to horizon. Apparently the Biblical flood was widespread enough that it was what to those in that vicinity was a world-wide event (meaning horizon to horizon).

However, as the story isn't even about how much of the planet was covered (or not covered), this detail doesn't even matter.

The biblical tale of humans being wiped from the planet (excepting Noah and his immediate family), is more than mere detail. It’s a foundational element of Christianity. Per the fable, the earth was re-populated by less than a dozen people.

 

[Meriweather]

Abortion, evolution, and gay marriage are recent examples.

Abortion and gay marriage are political issues, and everyone is allowed their political opinion. Evolution has not been a political issues.

 

[Meriweather]

The biblical tale of humans being wiped from the planet (excepting Noah and his immediate family), is more than mere detail. It’s a foundational element of Christianity. Per the fable, the earth was re-populated by less than a dozen people.

It is a story with a theme/lesson. That lesson is not about how the earth was repopulated, and has nothing to do with the story or its lessons.

 

[Hollie]

The biblical tale of humans being wiped from the planet (excepting Noah and his immediate family), is more than mere detail. It’s a foundational element of Christianity. Per the fable, the earth was re-populated by less than a dozen people.

It is a story with a theme/lesson. That lesson is not about how the earth was repopulated, and has nothing to do with the story or its lessons.

This directly contradicts the Bible and much of Christian theology. Nothing in the Bible identifies Genesis, the resurrection, Jesus as god, etc., as theme or lesson.

Is Jesus not god or prophet or savior, just a theme or lesson?

 

[Hollie]

The biblical tale of humans being wiped from the planet (excepting Noah and his immediate family), is more than mere detail. It’s a foundational element of Christianity. Per the fable, the earth was re-populated by less than a dozen people.

It is a story with a theme/lesson. That lesson is not about how the earth was repopulated, and has nothing to do with the story or its lessons.

I’m not understanding this. You wrote It is a story with a theme/lesson (the flood), but then don’t explain why the Bible makes no mention of the event as anything but a literal event.

 

[Meriweather]

This directly contradicts the Bible and much of Christian theology. Nothing in the Bible identifies Genesis, the resurrection, Jesus as god, etc., as theme or lesson.

Do you truly believe that the intent of the person who wrote about the Biblical flood was to detail how the earth was repopulated?