If you love your children,

[MineralMan]

you don't kill them when they misbehave. Unless, of course...

Genesis 6: 9-9:17 - The Story of Noah's Flood

Notable excerpt:

12 And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, and the creeping things and the fowl of the heaven, and they were destroyed from the earth. And Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. The Noah story is often marketed as a kid-friendly story.

Kids love animals, right?

Except it is also a story about genocide.

[MineralMan]

2. The first time I heard it, I was all WTF?

And I was just a little kid at the time. It made no sense to me then, and it still doesn't. They sell Noah's Ark toys on Christian websites, for pete's sake. Does nobody teach the rest of the story about the "loving God" that killed off everyone and everything except for one guy, his family and whatever animals he could load on the Ark?

I'm still all WTF? over that one. Of course, someone will come on and say, "Well, it's just "symbolic," you know. It's just a fable."

If it's just a fable, then the whole damned thing is just a fable, as far as I'm concerned.

https://www.catholiccompany.com/noahs-ark-playset-i30690

[trotsky]

3. Something something literalist something

How dare you take anything in the bible literally... except for the parts I do, those are OK...

[MineralMan]

4. The Noah story is one of the core stories in the OT.

Genesis. If that's not supposed to be true, what on Earth is true in the Bible? Of course, I know the answer to that question, but it's a very difficult one for some people.

As an atheist, I'm not a Bible literalist in any way. I don't believe any of it is factual. It's all a social fable, told by goat-herders around the campfire and written down sometime way after that. Much of it is aimed at children, who have to learn that they need to fear God, since that deity sometimes gets pissed off and kills everyone. So, behave, you rotten kids!

The Noah's Ark story is a story about doing as you're told and behaving yourself, because if you don't, God's gonna getcha for that.

[guillaumeb]

5. It is amazing how many avowed non-theists are Biblical literalists.

Or not so amazing.

[MineralMan]

6. Ah...I see.

Well, see, I'm not any sort of scripture literalist. I think they're all fables. It's not me who claims that they are truth. Ever.

The whole Noah's Ark think is quite obviously a moralistic fable. But, there are millions of people who believe that it happened just as it was written. How is that possible?

We atheists are not the Biblical literalists. We're the ones who are asking, "How can you possibly believe that?"

Maybe you don't think the Flood fable is actually true. I have no idea. But, if it's not, as far as you're concerned, what parts of the Bible do you think are true and are accurate representations of something? I've told you what I think. None of it. It's all fabulous tales.

But, you don't tell us what you think with any real clarity. Why is that? Instead, you call us the "literalists." We're not, you know. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

[guillaumeb]

7. I was being facetious.

Some non-theists insist on a literal interpretation so they can insist that, because the literal interpretation is incorrect, or scientifically impossible, the entire Bible should be rejected.

As to my personal beliefs, I am a Christian, and I have written numerous times that I believe that the essential message of Jesus is contained in the idea that the whole of the Law is to love your neighbor, and to do to others as you would have them do to you.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, that message is pretty much universal in all religions.

Christianity doesn't have an exclusive claim to it, by any means. It's as old as humanity. We are hurt by things. All we have to do is recognize that if something hurts us, it will also hurt others. The logic flows from there.

That's why the "Golden Rule" is universal, culturally, religiously, and otherwise.

So, given that, why Christianity? The answer to that is exposure. You, like most of us were exposed to Christianity. People in other cultures get exposed to their culture's dominant religion. They all teach that same basic message, in the midst of all the other stuff.

I'm a human being. I learned that basic message, which is not necessarily tied to any religion. Some time ago, I gave you a link to a very good Wikipedia article on "The Golden Rule." It showed how it occurs in all religions. Here it is again, and once again, I encourage you to read it:

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

There's nothing unique to Christianity in that message. Humanists believe that it's a good message, too. So do atheists.

[guillaumeb]

11. I agree with most of your response.

And I do not claim that the message is exclusive to Christianity, or any particular belief system. It is a survival mechanism.

[MineralMan]

13. Christianity is just one of the many religions of humans.

There are a few essential message, but virtually all of those are shared by the other religions and by non-religious people, as well.

You adhere to Christianity, for whatever reason you have for doing so. Others have other beliefs, and some believe that reason is all that is needed. We all share the same basic messages about how to interact with others. The rest is allegory, fable, or something else.

All religions have origin myths. All have some sort of eschatology. Most have deities of one sort or another. All share some very basic human understandings that are common to all cultures and societies.

There's nothing special about Christianity, really. It's just another religion humans follow.

Some humans follow no religion at all. I'm one of those. I don't have fables or myths to explain things. I have evidence or it doesn't matter, really. Things are as they are. That's enough.

[trotsky]

14. Many horrible things were at one time survival mechanisms for members of our species.

Rape, murder, genocide, extinction of other species. All helped humans propagate their genes over others.

Just because something was a survival mechanism at one time doesn't automatically give it special consideration, or even a good reason to be a survival mechanism going forward.

[guillaumeb]

19. What of nationalism?

Or patriotism?

[trotsky]

20. Who said those were survival mechanisms?

That's what you said religion was, and I noted other survival mechanism that weren't exactly positive things.

Your red herring is noted. Guess you lose again.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. You don't get it.

Patriotism and nationalism are shitty ideas. Humans often have shitty ideas, so we needn't bother ourselves trying to have fewer of them. Makes sense, right?

[trotsky]

23. It's odd how his constant go-to comment is basically...

'You can't say anything bad about religion, because I can name things that have sometimes also been bad.'

How someone simultaneously looks to his religion as a source of existential truth about the universe, but then tries to equate it to a simple human idea, and then TOTALLY misses the irony in doing that...

[trotsky]

9. WTF?

Some non-theists insist on a literal interpretation so they can insist that, because the literal interpretation is incorrect, or scientifically impossible, the entire Bible should be rejected.

Nice straw man. But then you insist you get to define atheism for atheists, so nothing new.

What's actually happening here is an attempt to get people to think about what external reference they are using to determine which bible stories they categorize as allegorical, and which they categorize as literal.

Because you take at least part of the bible literally, too. You literalist.

[guillaumeb]

10. Okay. Thank you for your input. eom

[trotsky]

12. Your surrender is accepted. n/t

[Mariana]

22. As a Christian

you must believe some parts of the Bible are literally true. How else could you suppose you know anything at all about Jesus or his message? The question I have is, How did you determine which of the stories are true and which are false?

[guillaumeb]

24. I see a difference between a story and a clear message.

A message to treat others as you would be treated is a bit different from a Bronze Age creation story.

[Mariana]

25. If the message is clear, why do so many Christians get it wrong?

How is it you are able to discern it, while so many others cannot?

Anyway, why have this huge thick book with all these conflicting stories in it, just to say treat others as you would be treated? Isn't there a better way to get such a simple, clear message across? This way obviously is confusing an awful lot of people.

[guillaumeb]

26. Literalism versus non-literalism?

You asked for my belief.

[Mariana]

27. Yes, and then I asked some other questions.

You know, like people do on a discussion board.

[guillaumeb]

28. I thought that #24 was clear.

I believe that the message of Jesus is quite clear, and the essence of Christianity. The rest I treat as commentary on the message, and Bronze Age mythology.

[trotsky]

29. Allow me to repeat Mariana's question.

If the message is clear, why do so many Christians get it wrong?

Why are you the only one to get it right?

[guillaumeb]

34. Allow me to clear up your misconception:

I said:

I believe that the message of Jesus is quite clear, and the essence of Christianity. The rest I treat as commentary on the message, and Bronze Age mythology.

I bolded the word I to make clear that this is my personal interpretation. So where do the words right and wrong enter into the discussion?

[marylandblue]

40. Is that really Christianity then?

Your religious precepts are clear only to you and apply only to you. You have an entire sacred book in which you only believe two lines. The two lines don't even mention God, yet you consider yourself a theist. That doesn't sound like Christianity, it sounds like Guillaumebism.

[guillaumeb]

41. If being a Christian is following the teachings of Jesus,

and He said that the whole of the Law consisted in doing to others...etc, I am a Christian.

[marylandblue]

42. Except he said other things too

Things that are more controversial or are unique to Christianity. What about those things?

[guillaumeb]

44. Specifics? eom

[marylandblue]

45. Specifics

"Turn the other cheek" - most people feel that is too pacifistic.
"The only way to the Father is through me" - generally not approved by other religions, sometimes even if used figuratively.
"If you leave a town and they will not listen to you, shake the dust off your feet... it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement for that town" - Hey, what about turning the other cheek?
"I did not come to bring peace, but the sword "-hey what about turning the other cheek?
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me "- I hope my kids aren't paying attention in Sunday School when they cover this part.
"Some here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God has come in power"- We're still waiting...


These are just a few off the top of my head.

[trotsky]

43. You still haven't answered the question.

No one is fooled by your desperate spin.

[MineralMan]

31. It's a new rule. Just one question per reply.

You only get one answer to one question. That's the rule.

[marylandblue]

30. That's not a theistic message

Theism adds that the Golden Rule is not just a good idea, it is God's will. But if we already knew it was a good idea, why does it matter that God agrees?

[guillaumeb]

35. Perhaps the Creator was the inspiration for the message. eom

[marylandblue]

38. Perhaps, but that wasn't my point

Jesus' message was not just what to do, but Who wants you to do it.

[trotsky]

46. A claim for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

But thanks for trying.

[struggle4progress]

15. Like many other stories in the old Hebrew library, this narrative has ancient roots,

has multiple layers, and admits multiple readings

There may be underlying ancient oral traditions from the end of the glacial period (say) about great floods associated with the breach of ice dams

But its more immediate origins are in the saga of Gilgamesh, which contains theological elements: Gilgamesh suddenly realizes he is mortal and sets out in search of immortality; at one point, he meets Ut-Napishtim, a man who has become immortal through his efforts to save life during a great flood; but Gilgamesh completely misses the point of this view of immortality and continues searching for something magical to eat. One notable change in the Hebrew version is that Noah's efforts to save life during a great flood (unlike Ut-Napishtim's) do not yield immortality: Noah lived three hundred fifty years after the flood and died

There are also feminist elements in the Noah story:

... the sons of God saw the daughters of men were fair and took as wives all they chose ... and when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, their children became mighty men ... And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth admits an obvious reading as a story of kings (who often enough have styled themselves "sons of God" ) forcing attractive but powerless women to become their concubines.There is then further evidence that the story relates to the treatment of women in Noah's disobedience when leaving the ark, for although God said to Noah, Exit the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives the story then reports Noah went out, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives so that the wives are all relegated only to the place before the animals, contrary to instruction. This might reflect the curious statement, near the beginning, that Noah was a righteous man in his generation which has produced the question "Why add in his generation?" and the plausible answer "He seemed righteous in his time but would not seem righteous today."

On top of this is also layered the moral lesson of obligation to act with foresight to save life when we see disaster ahead

And, of course, there is also a mystical explanation for rainbows

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Yes, because refraction didn't exist before 'the flood'.

Because that makes sense.

"And, of course, there is also a mystical explanation for rainbows "

It is not a mystical 'explanation', it's a silly unnecessary myth.

[struggle4progress]

17. I'm sure many wish you had had the foresight to be born 2600 years ago so you could have

beaten Aristotle to the correct reflection explanation of the rainbow's shape by several centuries and beaten the medieval monk Theodoric to the correct raindrop refraction explanation of the rainbow's colors by two millennia

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Well, it certainly would have saved everyone a lot of bullshit, right?

But no, I would have been a product of my era, standing atop the shoulders of those that came before me, without the shoulders I have to stand upon today.

[MineralMan]

32. I once heard from someone who claimed that there were no rainbows

before the time after Noah's flood. It had never rained before, according to that person. So, no rain - no rainbow. The same person quoted the "these shall be meat for you" verse to claim that all creatures were vegetarian before the flood.

How does one even begin to address such deliberate ignorance. And yet, we have Ken Ham, who has lots of followers who believe him. We have the Flood creating the Grand Canyon, despite extensive documentation of the real history of it.

It's God's way, they say. The Red Shift that allows us to measure the extent of the universe is something created by God, too, to create confusion.

Discussion is impossible with people who actually believe such nonsense.

[marylandblue]

33. These ideas are found in Jewish traditional writings

Last edited Tue Oct 17, 2017, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

So I'd wager that the person who said it to you was either raised in the Jewish tradition or influenced by it. In either case, it's not deliberate ignorance, but early indoctrination and confirmation bias. I see religion as a multilayered thing. Most believers accept the story at face value. Some probe a little more deeply and notice that something doesn't make sense. There is a whole set of answers for these people. If you are not satisfied with those answers, there is often a 3rd or 4th set of answers. And by the time you've studied all that, if you are still not satisfied, you are well qualified to write a commentary with your own answers in it.

[struggle4progress]

36. Foolish things are said more quickly and easily than they can be refuted

and so it is a silly waste of time to spend too much time refuting nonsense

Understanding our world is an ongoing effort: we are all indebted to those who came before us and contributed to our still imperfect notions and insights

I remember once, as a young child, being angry at someone for something the person said to me in one of my dreams. It was carefully explained to me that this had been a dream and not real. An idea like that is a cultural treasure; but we have traditions from a time predating that idea, notably the epics of Homer. I do not simply dismiss those epics on the grounds that they contain some notions which seem silly to me today but read them as products of a different era

I do not care much what Ken Ham says, for much the same reason that I do not spend time arguing with solipsists: the reason I am not a solipsist is that the notion does not help me. Many other irrefutable notions similarly do not help me. Someone once remarked to me that there was no way to prove that any one event caused any other, which (after reflection) I decided was (in some sense) a correct observation, but I did not thereafter cease to use causality in my thinking about events, because the notion was nevertheless useful to me. For the same reason, once I had learned the idea "dreams are not real" I found it useful and have never ceased to use it -- even though I do seem to learn something from my dreams

I think "humans saw rainbows long before the Noah story was ever told" -- because some notions about the uniformity of the world are useful. I do not attempt to dissuade anyone who wants to think otherwise, because arguing with fools seems to me nothing but a fool's errand. A nice man with a telescope once offered to teach me astronomy; he was a talented mechanic; further conversation, however, revealed that he thought it quite sinful to look at the stars through his telescope, since he believed the stars were heavenly angels; so I was polite to him, then and later, as we often crossed paths; but I somehow managed afterwards never to converse much with him about astronomy

[MineralMan]

37. The problem arises when such people are employed to teach children.

That is a real problem. More so in some places than in others, of course.

[struggle4progress]

39. My experience has been that any induced confusion is frequently self-limiting:

children are usually not stupid and can quickly discover new things by themselves. Many of the people I have known fruitfully spent their adolescent years in cheerful (if perhaps covert) disregard of much of what their elders thought they had taught them