Anyway, I asked him if the church believed dinosaur's existed. He said yes they do. To which I asked how Noah managed to get the Brachiosaurus on the boat.
Let me get this straight.
You, a doubter of the Flood account and (I think) believer in evolution, asked an Evangelical Christian a question that implied that dinosaurs and mankind co-existed on the Earth?
There are some great articles/opinions on the Skeptic Report on Creationism and such. Since I will not spend the rest of the month of May arguing and discussing this topic I'd thought I'd just share this. Follow the last link and get the rest. Rather long, but worth the read. The first link is priceless, but continue with the latter. The link is there too.
"Introduction
Creationists are probably more defensive about the Flood than any other part of their mythology. One indication of that is the fact that the seminal work of modern creationism (oxymoron) was called The Genesis Flood. The Flood story apparently required lots of explanation and justification if anyone were to take creationism seriously. An instantaneous supernatural creation by an omnipotent God is somehow easier to swallow than the cobbled-up mish-mash of legends that became the biblical Flood story. Consider a few minor difficulties and childish questions:
Were pairs of every species living on Earth taken aboard the Ark? All living and extinct species? All 50 billion or so species that have ever lived on Earth? Or only land animals and birds that couldn't survive by swimming for several months? We're still talking many millions of species. And while we're at it, why does my Bible state clearly and unambiguously that two of each kind of animal were taken aboard, then immediately afterwards it seems to correct itself by informing us that seven of each "clean" animal were boarded, and then immediately after THAT it insists that two of every kind were loaded? How did Noah know which species were clean several thousand years before God imparted those laws to Moses? And if Noah knew about "clean" animals, why wasn't that knowledge passed down through the generations? Is it possible that the whole business about "clean" animals necessary for sacrifices was tacked on later by a bungling editor who forgot to check the context for obvious contradictions?
You, a doubter of the Flood account and (I think) believer in evolution, asked an Evangelical Christian a question that implied that dinosaurs and mankind co-existed on the Earth?
Yeah aint it great?
Either way I thought his answer made more sense than most answers.
Baby Raptors and T-Rex are easier to handle I imagine. Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park?
Either way I thought his answer made more sense than most answers.
Baby Raptors and T-Rex are easier to handle I imagine. Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park?
Those baby Raptors and T-Rex and what not are soooo cute..... That is, until they rip you to shreds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
You see, that's the problem. No one with half a brain needs PROOF that Noah didn't save the animal kingdom by putting two of every species on a boat for a month.
You see, that's the problem. No one with half a brain needs PROOF that Noah didn't save the animal kingdom by putting two of every species on a boat for a month.
We're back to the spaghetti monster again.
When I asked for debate on the Bible's historical facts, I was talking about dates, names, cities, kings, who begat whom, etc. You know, all that trivia that people commonly brush aside that make the Bible a literary and historical tour de force.
I wasn't asking per se, for you to "prove the Flood" occurred. I apologize if I was unclear.
My point is that despite the idea that the Bible was carelessly put together and subject to some editors' conspiratorial whim, the Book of Books was actually thoughtfully compiled and carefully handed down.
The story of the Great Flood was recorded in that way, and while Christians (and Jews) may not understand every detail of how it took place, we believe this occurred as is recorded. I doubt even Moses understood all the details.
I personally believe the story because, to my mind, there is an insane amount of water on this planet that - coincidentally of course - would be just enough to cover the earth as recorded in Genesis. (Ask Al Gore! )
That, coupled with the similar stories that have been recorded by the earliest progenitors of almost every culture of the planet, signals to me that something of this nature occurred in the past.
While I know a number of Christian ministries (such as Answers in Genesis have built apologetic defenses of the Flood taking place, I'm embarrassed to say that I really haven't paid too much attention to the details.
I know this is exasperating for atheists and the like, but I've come to believe in the Bible as God's Revealed Word to mankind, and the Bible says it, so I don't really need a detailed explanation. For me, the only reason to research it would be to answer other people's questions on the issue.
We know this because we have original texts that with modern microscopy techniques have shown unequivocal evidence of editing.
If we have original texts of the Bible, I would love to see them. Did Paul make any handwritten notes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius
We know this because we have in the centuries since the Bible was compiled in its various forms discovered other parallel texts - of Mark for example - that contain passages not in the version in the Bible.
The "two endings" thing is weak. Some manuscripts - of which there are thousands by the way - have one or the other. Early church fathers quoted the longer ending, so if you think it was added later you are out of luck. If you think it was added earlier, well, what is the point? There are no doctrinal issues or incompatibilities between the two. Wikipedia is your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius
We know this because even without all that, the Bible as is, contains contradictory elements within itself.
I know you think you have discovered something that 2000 years of skeptics have overlooked. Please insure, when you post, that it's not as weak as the "Jesus died on the cross at different times in the Gospels" or similar. Make me do a bit of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius
And we know this because we have made historic discoveries that show the Bible's historic statements to be false.
For example, Luke's Gospel states that Herod was 'King of Judea' during the time that Qurinius was governor of Syria. We know now as an absolute fact from historical records that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor and the two were not (and could not have been) contemporaries.
The debate over whether Luke or Josephus is more credible is interesting. The Census Debate takes placed largely in academic circles and there are many plausible answers as to the reasons behind the discrepancy.
The tendency to blindly accept Josephus over Luke does remind me, however, about the vicious attacks by some skeptics over the fact that Daniel was listed in the Old Testament as ruling just under Belshazzar in Babylon. This was said to be a fiction of the imagination of the Jews.
In addition, Nabonidus was on the throne when Daniel records Belshazzar as ruler. Inscriptions and coins from the period were found in Nabonidus' name - the Bible was wrong!
Of course, when it was discovered that Belshazzar was co-ruler with his father during the time in question, the silence was deafening. Few had bothered with the assertion that Daniel had been listed in the Bible as the "third ruler in the kingdom", despite all historical record of the Babylonian co-rule being lost. (Daniel 5:29)
When I asked for debate on the Bible's historical facts, I was talking about dates, names, cities, kings, who begat whom, etc. You know, all that trivia that people commonly brush aside that make the Bible a literary and historical tour de force.
I wasn't asking per se, for you to "prove the Flood" occurred. I apologize if I was unclear.
My point is that despite the idea that the Bible was carelessly put together and subject to some editors' conspiratorial whim, the Book of Books was actually thoughtfully compiled and carefully handed down.
The story of the Great Flood was recorded in that way, and while Christians (and Jews) may not understand every detail of how it took place, we believe this occurred as is recorded. I doubt even Moses understood all the details.
I personally believe the story because, to my mind, there is an insane amount of water on this planet that - coincidentally of course - would be just enough to cover the earth as recorded in Genesis. (Ask Al Gore! )
That, coupled with the similar stories that have been recorded by the earliest progenitors of almost every culture of the planet, signals to me that something of this nature occurred in the past.
While I know a number of Christian ministries (such as Answers in Genesis have built apologetic defenses of the Flood taking place, I'm embarrassed to say that I really haven't paid too much attention to the details.
I know this is exasperating for atheists and the like, but I've come to believe in the Bible as God's Revealed Word to mankind, and the Bible says it, so I don't really need a detailed explanation. For me, the only reason to research it would be to answer other people's questions on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius
^^^^^^ Ok. let's do the Bible thing.
The Bible may originally be a revealed scripture but for sure it has been corrupted.
We know this because we have original texts that with modern microscopy techniques have shown unequivocal evidence of editing.
We know this because we have in the centuries since the Bible was compiled in its various forms discovered other parallel texts - of Mark for example - that contain passages not in the version in the Bible.
We know this because even without all that, the Bible as is, contains contradictory elements within itself.
And we know this because we have made historic discoveries that show the Bible's historic statements to be false.
For example, Luke's Gospel states that Herod was 'King of Judea' during the time that Qurinius was governor of Syria. We know now as an absolute fact from historical records that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor and the two were not (and could not have been) contemporaries.
There are many such examples.
At the end of the day regardless of what the *words actually are*, it is the individuals interpretation of any text, or religious/ spiritual/ etc. experience that makes it God(s)' Word to them.
However, for the life of me whatever bits of the Bible as revealed to me in Methodist and Lutheran high schools I attended, some minor reading here and there, plus the "Lost Gospels", I cannot make head or tails of what is going on there.
What is God's Word as revealed to me has been through an evolution through various forms of Prayer, Yoga, Meditation, Friends, Sex, Drugs, WitchCraft, Power Of Now (Book) and Course in Miracles (Book), Hiking in Nature, Going for a Swim/ Run, Watching The Moon Rise Yesterday.
Frank, I am happy that you have found a way to receive God's messages and teachings, as for me though, historical, cultural, literal interpretation of the Bible has kinda made me keep it at arm's length. Also I have my own views of the Trinity as relevant to the Path Home, while Christianity in general (IMO) appears to have made Jesus purely a deity (the Son of God thing), while not emphasising enough that his way can be everyones (Christ as an approach to life, a way of living, not "[jesus] Christ as the one and only (literal) Son of God".
For me as far as the Flood is concerned, I am interested in the *meaning* behind it, which NO ONE HERE HAS YET TRIED TO OFFER a "meaning" of the story. Whether the frack the story is true or not.
So, what is the Flood supposed to symbolise and mean? I guess besides, "Man was Evil so God sent a Big Flood to Kill Everyone".... "Except the "Clean????" Animals and Noah. And some human male and females to repopulate the earth....???" WTF?? Please Explain.
Some fundie literalists were stupid enough, arrogant enough and egotistical enough to believe that everything has to do with them personally started to look at their own behaviour for a cause.
Being weak and pathetic unfree characters they soon found that the things they enjoyed - natural things like shagging, drinking and general carousing - caused them distress because they were so insecure they could not really enter into these activities.
They then 'realized' that these activities must be 'sins' and that 'God' must be really pissed off.
Hence the flood.
Then, some slightly less stupid (but not much) fundie literalists realized they could use this motif as a tool to:
a) bash other people over the head and keep them in submission
b) scare the bejeezus out of more normal people and convert them into being fundie literalists too.
So they set about incorporating accounts of the local flood into 'Holy Scripture' and altered other genuine texts to show God as a vengeful, nasty old man - the mirror-image of themselves strangely enough - who gets really pissed off when someone starts having a good time.
Really - that's all there is to it.
Some things really aren't that deep.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
And the flood waters might not have been as dep as they say they were..
Nice wrap up, seg. It all boils down to insecurities, doesn't it.
Man is a very fragile creature wth a brain that can create a billion ways to scare him to death. Really: there is a boogie man in the closet.
Cool. At least we have 1 view of it. Anybody else (Frank I'm looking at you) ....??
Yeah the whole evolution (heh, pun intended) from "hedonist" polytheistic earth-based god & goddess spirituality to a monotheistic-angry-father God is a rather unhappy turn of events in my view. I guess after tens and thousands of years, the guilt caught up to them. Then after the Old Testament stuff, voila, Jesus, all your sins forgiven. Only if you believe in Jesus though.
Well, at least they brought back the Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card in the New Testament.
Also I want to say, in the US at least, they seem to portray the battle as between "fundamentalist literalists" as you say and those "secular liberalists". What about the "spiritual liberalists"... which I would classify myself in... are we just written off as new-age cuckoos??
Though actually I don't get along usually with the New Age cuckoos... I'm too centrist for some of them, and I'm too leftist for the centrist traditional-not-too-serious-about-religion non-atheists.
Yeah basically if either the New Testament or Old or Both is the Truth, I am royally, I mean, seriously, FRACKED for all eternity. ...But at this stage not much incentive to believe that I am "doomed"*.
*Of course, there are many other interpretations within Christianity/ Catholicism that are not as bleak as I make it to be.
Though yeah, Frank mentioned referring to the Bible when doing research, I'd be interested in his response. I wanna see verses, and then do explain what it is supposed to mean, I *am* open to what *could* be the Word of God, like I mentioned, I feel it comes from different sources.
Nice wrap up, seg. It all boils down to insecurities, doesn't it.
Man is a very fragile creature wth a brain that can create a billion ways to scare him to death. Really: there is a boogie man in the closet.
Having suffered from severe anxiety disorder for about a year or so at least, in recent times... That fear is pretty damn big. Ironically I think with Guilt, it is not the fear that you are wrong, but the fear that actually all is forgiven, God will Love you no matter what. Then it *really* gets scary, you're like. OMFG. You mean You Love Me unconditionally? And this is Everybody's Heritage/ Destiny?? And I *don't* have to go through a Third Party (eg. Jesus)...??? Whoaaa.......
For me as far as the Flood is concerned, I am interested in the *meaning* behind it, which NO ONE HERE HAS YET TRIED TO OFFER a "meaning" of the story. Whether the frack the story is true or not.
The ark is a vessel that carries something. Your body is a vessel that carries something. Noah was a good man who chose to follow Gods will. You are (maybe!) a good man who wants to follow 'the will'. Gods 'will' and 'the will' could be the same thing if you think about it. Noah gets in his vessel with his closest, and is insulated - to inherit a purer world cleansed of sin. Water cleanses. You have your vessel, Noah is your soul. Wanting to find 'the way' you shut yourself off from sin, but take along your closest, ponder your mind and cleanse yourself to inherit a new world, or state of mind, where hopefully you are free(r) of sin and following the path of Gods will or the will.
When the cleansing is complete, Noah, like you will be in a different state of mind and will probably get drunk, this may mean that being drunk is akin to having a new knowledge, as wine is sometimes a metaphor for knowledge, ie water into wine - ignorance to knowldge - Noah is drunk in his tent, The tent is his new vessel, small, humble and without the grandeur of the Ark, much is lost for a small but priceless worthwhile gain- just like your new state of mind.
Of course, the story is ripped from Gilgamesh and others, which might describe the real events of a local flood. There is also the possibility that the flood is purely symbolic and comes from mythmaking by looking at astrology, as Noah's ark is symbolised by the constellation Argo Navis, later split up into seperate constellations, the dove is the constellation of columba, and you might well find that all the animals that entered the Ark are the many constellation that depict animals. There are also water constellations, rivers and the milky way. There are also some cool numbers in the story 480, 120 and 600, which clearly are multiples of 12 (multiplied by 10 for grand effect) - being months of the year or houses of the zodiac, you dont really believe people live to 600 do you??? I also recall reading somewhere that the ratios of the arks dimensions match the ratio of dimensions of an imaginary box the human body fits in.
Now my old mate Frank is going into arrest, and segovius is bound to claim i'm mentally ill.
Comments
Anyway, I asked him if the church believed dinosaur's existed. He said yes they do. To which I asked how Noah managed to get the Brachiosaurus on the boat.
Let me get this straight.
You, a doubter of the Flood account and (I think) believer in evolution, asked an Evangelical Christian a question that implied that dinosaurs and mankind co-existed on the Earth?
"Introduction
Creationists are probably more defensive about the Flood than any other part of their mythology. One indication of that is the fact that the seminal work of modern creationism (oxymoron) was called The Genesis Flood. The Flood story apparently required lots of explanation and justification if anyone were to take creationism seriously. An instantaneous supernatural creation by an omnipotent God is somehow easier to swallow than the cobbled-up mish-mash of legends that became the biblical Flood story. Consider a few minor difficulties and childish questions:
Were pairs of every species living on Earth taken aboard the Ark? All living and extinct species? All 50 billion or so species that have ever lived on Earth? Or only land animals and birds that couldn't survive by swimming for several months? We're still talking many millions of species. And while we're at it, why does my Bible state clearly and unambiguously that two of each kind of animal were taken aboard, then immediately afterwards it seems to correct itself by informing us that seven of each "clean" animal were boarded, and then immediately after THAT it insists that two of every kind were loaded? How did Noah know which species were clean several thousand years before God imparted those laws to Moses? And if Noah knew about "clean" animals, why wasn't that knowledge passed down through the generations? Is it possible that the whole business about "clean" animals necessary for sacrifices was tacked on later by a bungling editor who forgot to check the context for obvious contradictions?
I have compiled a list of "Things Creationists Hate" which might also be of interest. "
The Whole Silly Flood Story
Forget the Brachiosaurus, how the hell did he get the T-Rex and Velociraptors onboard?
The Devil made Steven Speilberg come up with Velociraptors.
Let me get this straight.
You, a doubter of the Flood account and (I think) believer in evolution, asked an Evangelical Christian a question that implied that dinosaurs and mankind co-existed on the Earth?
Yeah aint it great?
Either way I thought his answer made more sense than most answers.
Baby Raptors and T-Rex are easier to handle I imagine. Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park?
Yeah aint it great?
Either way I thought his answer made more sense than most answers.
Baby Raptors and T-Rex are easier to handle I imagine. Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park?
Those baby Raptors and T-Rex and what not are soooo cute..... That is, until they rip you to shreds.
You see, that's the problem. No one with half a brain needs PROOF that Noah didn't save the animal kingdom by putting two of every species on a boat for a month.
We're back to the spaghetti monster again.
What's the spaghetti monster?
What's the spaghetti monster?
I was wondering the same...
You see, that's the problem. No one with half a brain needs PROOF that Noah didn't save the animal kingdom by putting two of every species on a boat for a month.
We're back to the spaghetti monster again.
When I asked for debate on the Bible's historical facts, I was talking about dates, names, cities, kings, who begat whom, etc. You know, all that trivia that people commonly brush aside that make the Bible a literary and historical tour de force.
I wasn't asking per se, for you to "prove the Flood" occurred. I apologize if I was unclear.
My point is that despite the idea that the Bible was carelessly put together and subject to some editors' conspiratorial whim, the Book of Books was actually thoughtfully compiled and carefully handed down.
The story of the Great Flood was recorded in that way, and while Christians (and Jews) may not understand every detail of how it took place, we believe this occurred as is recorded. I doubt even Moses understood all the details.
I personally believe the story because, to my mind, there is an insane amount of water on this planet that - coincidentally of course - would be just enough to cover the earth as recorded in Genesis. (Ask Al Gore!
That, coupled with the similar stories that have been recorded by the earliest progenitors of almost every culture of the planet, signals to me that something of this nature occurred in the past.
While I know a number of Christian ministries (such as Answers in Genesis have built apologetic defenses of the Flood taking place, I'm embarrassed to say that I really haven't paid too much attention to the details.
I know this is exasperating for atheists and the like, but I've come to believe in the Bible as God's Revealed Word to mankind, and the Bible says it, so I don't really need a detailed explanation. For me, the only reason to research it would be to answer other people's questions on the issue.
We know this because we have original texts that with modern microscopy techniques have shown unequivocal evidence of editing.
If we have original texts of the Bible, I would love to see them. Did Paul make any handwritten notes?
We know this because we have in the centuries since the Bible was compiled in its various forms discovered other parallel texts - of Mark for example - that contain passages not in the version in the Bible.
The "two endings" thing is weak. Some manuscripts - of which there are thousands by the way - have one or the other. Early church fathers quoted the longer ending, so if you think it was added later you are out of luck. If you think it was added earlier, well, what is the point? There are no doctrinal issues or incompatibilities between the two. Wikipedia is your friend.
We know this because even without all that, the Bible as is, contains contradictory elements within itself.
I know you think you have discovered something that 2000 years of skeptics have overlooked. Please insure, when you post, that it's not as weak as the "Jesus died on the cross at different times in the Gospels" or similar. Make me do a bit of work.
And we know this because we have made historic discoveries that show the Bible's historic statements to be false.
For example, Luke's Gospel states that Herod was 'King of Judea' during the time that Qurinius was governor of Syria. We know now as an absolute fact from historical records that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor and the two were not (and could not have been) contemporaries.
The debate over whether Luke or Josephus is more credible is interesting. The Census Debate takes placed largely in academic circles and there are many plausible answers as to the reasons behind the discrepancy.
The tendency to blindly accept Josephus over Luke does remind me, however, about the vicious attacks by some skeptics over the fact that Daniel was listed in the Old Testament as ruling just under Belshazzar in Babylon. This was said to be a fiction of the imagination of the Jews.
In addition, Nabonidus was on the throne when Daniel records Belshazzar as ruler. Inscriptions and coins from the period were found in Nabonidus' name - the Bible was wrong!
Of course, when it was discovered that Belshazzar was co-ruler with his father during the time in question, the silence was deafening. Few had bothered with the assertion that Daniel had been listed in the Bible as the "third ruler in the kingdom", despite all historical record of the Babylonian co-rule being lost. (Daniel 5:29)
When I asked for debate on the Bible's historical facts, I was talking about dates, names, cities, kings, who begat whom, etc. You know, all that trivia that people commonly brush aside that make the Bible a literary and historical tour de force.
I wasn't asking per se, for you to "prove the Flood" occurred. I apologize if I was unclear.
My point is that despite the idea that the Bible was carelessly put together and subject to some editors' conspiratorial whim, the Book of Books was actually thoughtfully compiled and carefully handed down.
The story of the Great Flood was recorded in that way, and while Christians (and Jews) may not understand every detail of how it took place, we believe this occurred as is recorded. I doubt even Moses understood all the details.
I personally believe the story because, to my mind, there is an insane amount of water on this planet that - coincidentally of course - would be just enough to cover the earth as recorded in Genesis. (Ask Al Gore!
That, coupled with the similar stories that have been recorded by the earliest progenitors of almost every culture of the planet, signals to me that something of this nature occurred in the past.
While I know a number of Christian ministries (such as Answers in Genesis have built apologetic defenses of the Flood taking place, I'm embarrassed to say that I really haven't paid too much attention to the details.
I know this is exasperating for atheists and the like, but I've come to believe in the Bible as God's Revealed Word to mankind, and the Bible says it, so I don't really need a detailed explanation. For me, the only reason to research it would be to answer other people's questions on the issue.
^^^^^^ Ok. let's do the Bible thing.
The Bible may originally be a revealed scripture but for sure it has been corrupted.
We know this because we have original texts that with modern microscopy techniques have shown unequivocal evidence of editing.
We know this because we have in the centuries since the Bible was compiled in its various forms discovered other parallel texts - of Mark for example - that contain passages not in the version in the Bible.
We know this because even without all that, the Bible as is, contains contradictory elements within itself.
And we know this because we have made historic discoveries that show the Bible's historic statements to be false.
For example, Luke's Gospel states that Herod was 'King of Judea' during the time that Qurinius was governor of Syria. We know now as an absolute fact from historical records that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor and the two were not (and could not have been) contemporaries.
There are many such examples.
At the end of the day regardless of what the *words actually are*, it is the individuals interpretation of any text, or religious/ spiritual/ etc. experience that makes it God(s)' Word to them.
However, for the life of me whatever bits of the Bible as revealed to me in Methodist and Lutheran high schools I attended, some minor reading here and there, plus the "Lost Gospels", I cannot make head or tails of what is going on there.
What is God's Word as revealed to me has been through an evolution through various forms of Prayer, Yoga, Meditation, Friends, Sex, Drugs, WitchCraft, Power Of Now (Book) and Course in Miracles (Book), Hiking in Nature, Going for a Swim/ Run, Watching The Moon Rise Yesterday.
Frank, I am happy that you have found a way to receive God's messages and teachings, as for me though, historical, cultural, literal interpretation of the Bible has kinda made me keep it at arm's length. Also I have my own views of the Trinity as relevant to the Path Home, while Christianity in general (IMO) appears to have made Jesus purely a deity (the Son of God thing), while not emphasising enough that his way can be everyones (Christ as an approach to life, a way of living, not "[jesus] Christ as the one and only (literal) Son of God".
Ooohh... This post will get some responses....
So, what is the Flood supposed to symbolise and mean? I guess besides, "Man was Evil so God sent a Big Flood to Kill Everyone".... "Except the "Clean????" Animals and Noah. And some human male and females to repopulate the earth....???" WTF?? Please Explain.
I know this is exasperating for atheists and the like.....
No, actually it's not. Sometimes it's rather amusing.....when it's not sad.
Nice wrap up, seg. It all boils down to insecurities, doesn't it.
Man is a very fragile creature wth a brain that can create a billion ways to scare him to death. Really: there is a boogie man in the closet.
A local flood happened.
Some fundie literalists were stupid enough, arrogant enough and egotistical enough to believe that everything has to do with them personally started to look at their own behaviour for a cause.
Being weak and pathetic unfree characters they soon found that the things they enjoyed - natural things like shagging, drinking and general carousing - caused them distress because they were so insecure they could not really enter into these activities.
They then 'realized' that these activities must be 'sins' and that 'God' must be really pissed off.
Hence the flood.
Then, some slightly less stupid (but not much) fundie literalists realized they could use this motif as a tool to:
a) bash other people over the head and keep them in submission
b) scare the bejeezus out of more normal people and convert them into being fundie literalists too.
So they set about incorporating accounts of the local flood into 'Holy Scripture' and altered other genuine texts to show God as a vengeful, nasty old man - the mirror-image of themselves strangely enough - who gets really pissed off when someone starts having a good time.
Really - that's all there is to it.
Some things really aren't that deep.....
And the flood waters might not have been as dep as they say they were..
Nice wrap up, seg. It all boils down to insecurities, doesn't it.
Man is a very fragile creature wth a brain that can create a billion ways to scare him to death. Really: there is a boogie man in the closet.
Cool. At least we have 1 view of it. Anybody else (Frank I'm looking at you)
Yeah the whole evolution (heh, pun intended) from "hedonist" polytheistic earth-based god & goddess spirituality to a monotheistic-angry-father God is a rather unhappy turn of events in my view. I guess after tens and thousands of years, the guilt caught up to them. Then after the Old Testament stuff, voila, Jesus, all your sins forgiven. Only if you believe in Jesus though.
Well, at least they brought back the Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card in the New Testament.
I'd put myself in that class too so there's at least two of us.
....
I quite like the label new-age cuckoo though......
Cheers..! Heh.
*Of course, there are many other interpretations within Christianity/ Catholicism that are not as bleak as I make it to be.
Though yeah, Frank mentioned referring to the Bible when doing research, I'd be interested in his response. I wanna see verses, and then do explain what it is supposed to mean, I *am* open to what *could* be the Word of God, like I mentioned, I feel it comes from different sources.
Nice wrap up, seg. It all boils down to insecurities, doesn't it.
Man is a very fragile creature wth a brain that can create a billion ways to scare him to death. Really: there is a boogie man in the closet.
Having suffered from severe anxiety disorder for about a year or so at least, in recent times... That fear is pretty damn big. Ironically I think with Guilt, it is not the fear that you are wrong, but the fear that actually all is forgiven, God will Love you no matter what. Then it *really* gets scary, you're like. OMFG. You mean You Love Me unconditionally? And this is Everybody's Heritage/ Destiny?? And I *don't* have to go through a Third Party (eg. Jesus)...??? Whoaaa.......
For me as far as the Flood is concerned, I am interested in the *meaning* behind it, which NO ONE HERE HAS YET TRIED TO OFFER a "meaning" of the story. Whether the frack the story is true or not.
The ark is a vessel that carries something. Your body is a vessel that carries something. Noah was a good man who chose to follow Gods will. You are (maybe!) a good man who wants to follow 'the will'. Gods 'will' and 'the will' could be the same thing if you think about it. Noah gets in his vessel with his closest, and is insulated - to inherit a purer world cleansed of sin. Water cleanses. You have your vessel, Noah is your soul. Wanting to find 'the way' you shut yourself off from sin, but take along your closest, ponder your mind and cleanse yourself to inherit a new world, or state of mind, where hopefully you are free(r) of sin and following the path of Gods will or the will.
When the cleansing is complete, Noah, like you will be in a different state of mind and will probably get drunk, this may mean that being drunk is akin to having a new knowledge, as wine is sometimes a metaphor for knowledge, ie water into wine - ignorance to knowldge - Noah is drunk in his tent, The tent is his new vessel, small, humble and without the grandeur of the Ark, much is lost for a small but priceless worthwhile gain- just like your new state of mind.
Of course, the story is ripped from Gilgamesh and others, which might describe the real events of a local flood. There is also the possibility that the flood is purely symbolic and comes from mythmaking by looking at astrology, as Noah's ark is symbolised by the constellation Argo Navis, later split up into seperate constellations, the dove is the constellation of columba, and you might well find that all the animals that entered the Ark are the many constellation that depict animals. There are also water constellations, rivers and the milky way. There are also some cool numbers in the story 480, 120 and 600, which clearly are multiples of 12 (multiplied by 10 for grand effect) - being months of the year or houses of the zodiac, you dont really believe people live to 600 do you???
Now my old mate Frank is going into arrest, and segovius is bound to claim i'm mentally ill.