Is the Story of Noah the worst teaching in the Bible?

[Rlyeh]

10 hours ago, Crikey said:

Huh? One minute atheists are saying the bible's been edited, censored and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then the next minute they're saying it's still flawed!

Wish they'd make up their minds..;)

Which isn't mutually exclusive.  Work on your comprehension skills.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

13 hours ago, Crikey said:

Huh? One minute atheists are saying the bible's been edited, censored and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then the next minute they're saying it's still flawed!

Wish they'd make up their minds..;)

Just wait until you hear even Catholics say that the Bible’s been edited and touched up (no snickering down the back there!). 

[Piney]

12 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yeah, the Roman Pau/Saul who never existed in the first place.      Of course he would be the one to preach misogyny,  typical roman ideology.   

Saul of Tarsus existed. The misogyny was added after he was dead along with other "corrections?" to his letters.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Saul of Tarsus existed. The misogyny was added after he was dead along with other "corrections?" to his letters.

By the (in)famous Pauline “Secretary”, who wrote at least two of the Letters as well (Paul is acknowledged as dead in them).

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

By the (in)famous Pauline “Secretary”, who wrote at least two of the Letters as well (Paul is acknowledged as dead in them).

Yup, I forgot about that. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yup, I forgot about that. 

The Lay Catholic scholarly community are getting a wee bit scathing of our friendly Secretary. Basically implying that all the sexist, anti-whatever stuff from the Epistles are his fault, not Paul’s.

[Piney]

13 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

The Lay Catholic scholarly community are getting a wee bit scathing of our friendly Secretary. Basically implying that all the sexist, anti-whatever stuff from the Epistles are his fault, not Paul’s.

The Southern Baptists, on the other hand want to add more to it. 

 

[+Desertrat56]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

Saul of Tarsus existed. The misogyny was added after he was dead along with other "corrections?" to his letters.

Ok, It makes no sense though, but then when someone, like an emperor, wants some way to keep his empire by controlling huge number of people  It makes more sense to me that the story of a roman soldier converting to a judaic sect and wandering around telling people what the rabi he never met wants and says was made up.  I can believe the part about the goofball getting tossed in jail in every town he went to, but was it really because he was "spreading the word of Jesus"?  No.

[Hawkins]

It is a must. The Noah story says that humans lack the ability to convey a historical fact without assistance from God. That's why all similar stories turned into myths in different cultures. The maximum human capability for an ancient fact to convey is to package it into a story. Then God will embed informaiton into this story while upkeeping it from turning into a cultural myth.

That said. The true significance of the story is the relationship between God's Law and His covenants. By Law which applicable to both angels and humans alike, and after lawful witnessing from Adam till Noah, humankind need to be destroyed as the very purpose of the existence of earth as God's harvest field is defeated. That is, no humans can pass the Judgment of Law (the same set of Law applicable to angels) to enter the final Heaven. While God's ultimate plan is to build an eternity we call Heaven for angels and humans to live with a sin-incompatible God forever.This sin-incompatible God thus defined Law to lawfully identify who He's going to bear with in eternity. It means He has to bear with your behavior in eternity once you pass the Final Judgment of Law. At that point, humankind need to be destroyed, by a flood as it happened. However, God's salvation plan is for the righteous (relative to a covenant instead of Law) to continue to live. Since then human righteousness is based off a covenant instead of Law (which is applicable to angels). To put it another way, humans are no longer judged by Law but by a series of covenants applicable to the different scopes of humans. Humans can 'dodge' the judgment of Law this way because God, at some point of humanity, would make a self-sacrifice through Jesus in accordance to what Law demands.

Now without the Noah story, the above 'theory' cannot be convey as ancient humans (before the development of full scale writing capability) lack the ability to convey a fact (a flood), not to mention a theory. In today's computer world, the story is more or less like a encoded piece of information. Those who are close to God may hold the key to decode the information embedded, just as how I tell you here in this very thread.

 

The advice here is, you don't know what you doing with your incapable intelligence. You are advised to use your faith instead of your intelligence, as human intelligence is not reliable especially under the intended manipulation of the much more intelligent angelic beings. That's pretty much the story of Eden. If you continue to choose to  rely on your intelligence or the lack thereof, the same day you choose to eat of it the same day you shall surely die. Whether life will continue after death (i.e., the Tree of Life) is hidden from humans. Human thus don't know whether life can go beyond the physical death. Thus if they choose to rely on their intelligence/knowledge/technology etc. to make a decision, while influenced by the snake (angelic beings) without humans' own awareness, the same day they shall surely die.

Yet another 'encoded' story conveyed by ancient humans. I can actually tell you how the devil deceived the whole world single handedly with a single trick. Well I'll leave it perhaps some other time.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Hawkins

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

4 hours ago, Hawkins said:

It is a must. The Noah story says that humans lack the ability to convey a historical fact without assistance from God. That's why all similar stories turned into myths in different cultures. The maximum human capability for an ancient fact to convey is to package it into a story. Then God will embed informaiton into this story while upkeeping it from turning into a cultural myth.

That said. The true significance of the story is the relationship between God's Law and His covenants. By Law which applicable to both angels and humans alike, and after lawful witnessing from Adam till Noah, humankind need to be destroyed as the very purpose of the existence of earth as God's harvest field is defeated. That is, no humans can pass the Judgment of Law (the same set of Law applicable to angels) to enter the final Heaven. While God's ultimate plan is to build an eternity we call Heaven for angels and humans to live with a sin-incompatible God forever.This sin-incompatible God thus defined Law to lawfully identify who He's going to bear with in eternity. It means He has to bear with your behavior in eternity once you pass the Final Judgment of Law. At that point, humankind need to be destroyed, by a flood as it happened. However, God's salvation plan is for the righteous (relative to a covenant instead of Law) to continue to live. Since then human righteousness is based off a covenant instead of Law (which is applicable to angels). To put it another way, humans are no longer judged by Law but by a series of covenants applicable to the different scopes of humans. Humans can 'dodge' the judgment of Law this way because God, at some point of humanity, would make a self-sacrifice through Jesus in accordance to what Law demands.

Now without the Noah story, the above 'theory' cannot be convey as ancient humans (before the development of full scale writing capability) lack the ability to convey a fact (a flood), not to mention a theory. In today's computer world, the story is more or less like a encoded piece of information. Those who are close to God may hold the key to decode the information embedded, just as how I tell you here in this very thread.

 

The advice here is, you don't know what you doing with your incapable intelligence. You are advised to use your faith instead of your intelligence, as human intelligence is not reliable especially under the intended manipulation of the much more intelligent angelic beings. That's pretty much the story of Eden. If you continue to choose to  rely on your intelligence or the lack thereof, the same day you choose to eat of it the same day you shall surely die. Whether life will continue after death (i.e., the Tree of Life) is hidden from humans. Human thus don't know whether life can go beyond the physical death. Thus if they choose to rely on their intelligence/knowledge/technology etc. to make a decision, while influenced by the snake (angelic beings) without humans' own awareness, the same day they shall surely die.

Yet another 'encoded' story conveyed by ancient humans. I can actually tell you how the devil deceived the whole world single handedly with a single trick. Well I'll leave it perhaps some other time.

I would argue that as a covenantial introduction, its message pales in comparison to how it’s delivered in the Mosaic books, wherein “I’ll be with you, but I’ll let you make mistakes” is grounded nicely, the building of, breaking of and repairing of covenants are established AND it presents The Lord as less of a destructive god and more or a nuanced one. 

[Crikey]

19 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Just wait until you hear even Catholics say that the Bible’s been edited and touched up (no snickering down the back there!). 

i personally don't give a rat's ass what catholics say..:)

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Crikey said:

i personally don't give a rat's ass what catholics say..:)

You should, only Christian group founded by an Apostle - all the others are damn dirty splittists!

[Crikey]

34 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You should, only Christian group founded by an Apostle - all the others are damn dirty splittists!

Jesus said "This is how you should pray-"Our Father in heaven...", yet catholics disobey him pray to his mum, so they should get on here this instant..:)-

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Crikey said:

Jesus said "This is how you should pray-"Our Father in heaven...", yet catholics disobey him pray to his mum, so they should get on here this instant..:)-

 

Interestingly enough “the Lord’s Prayer” isn’t strictly a “PRAY THIS ONLY!” prayer but rather the scaffold for how to pray - respectful words unto t9 whom you are praying (hallowed by thy name/full of grace), a invocation of their power (they kingdom come, thy will be done/the lord is with you), a request (give us our daily bread or protect us from evil/pray for us now…) s9 there is that…

[Crikey]

10 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Interestingly enough “the Lord’s Prayer” isn’t strictly a “PRAY THIS ONLY!” prayer but rather the scaffold for how to pray - respectful words unto t9 whom you are praying (hallowed by thy name/full of grace), a invocation of their power (they kingdom come, thy will be done/the lord is with you), a request (give us our daily bread or protect us from evil/pray for us now…) s9 there is that…

Yer wot?

Praying to Jesus's mum didn't do poor Fredo much good..

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

On 6/20/2023 at 8:16 PM, Crikey said:

Huh? One minute atheists are saying the bible's been edited, censored and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then the next minute they're saying it's still flawed!

Wish they'd make up their minds..;)

I'm an atheist and I don't think that.

Since we don't have any early versions of the bible we can't really say what was changed.

The people who wrote the bible could have used someone in charge of editing continuity errors though.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

On 6/20/2023 at 8:16 PM, Crikey said:

Huh? One minute atheists are saying the bible's been edited, censored and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then the next minute they're saying it's still flawed!

Wish they'd make up their minds..;)

I'm an atheist and I don't think that.

Since we don't have any early versions of the bible we can't really say what was changed.

The people who wrote the bible could have used someone in charge of editing continuity errors though.

To me the idea of original sin is the worst. Getting punished for something that a distant ancestor did is just messed up, as is the idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed. 

[+Desertrat56]

6 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I'm an atheist and I don't think that.

Since we don't have any early versions of the bible we can't really say what was changed.

The people who wrote the bible could have used someone in charge of editing continuity errors though.

To me the idea of original sin is the worst. Getting punished for something that a distant ancestor did is just messed up, as is the idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed. 

It is a manipulative tactic, that's all.  We are supposed to be lowly humans in need of guidance and reprimand from some imaginary entity that claims to love us, but treats us like it hates us.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Somehow I managed to make a new post (#42), instead of editing the first post (#41). I shouldn't post from the phone early in the morning. 

[Dejarma]

14 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

To me the idea of original sin is the worst. Getting punished for something that a distant ancestor did is just messed up, as is the idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed. 

yeah, good thing it's not real, phew 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 6/25/2023 at 6:04 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

To me the idea of original sin is the worst. Getting punished for something that a distant ancestor did is just messed up, as is the idea that all humans are fundamentally flawed. 

Apropos that - there’s been a re-evaluation of what the Original Sin was, many modern theologians posit that OS was the capacity for murder/negative actions.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Apropos that - there’s been a re-evaluation of what the Original Sin was, many modern theologians posit that OS was the capacity for murder/negative actions.

Modern theologians like Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick?

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

46 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Modern theologians like Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick?

 

Modern theologians aren’5 known for the speed of their wit.

[Sojo]

On 6/25/2023 at 6:59 PM, Dejarma said:

yeah, good thing it's not real, phew 

Personally, I think the idea of original sin was to try to explain the presence of evil in the world and why descendants of Adam/Eve were inclined to commit evil.

Obviously, evil in the world created by an all-knowing spirit creator would logically be the result of the creator's actions in the decision to allow it.

And, mankind being the self-centered personalities we are, choose to point that fact out in order to try to put the blame on "God" for evil's presence in the world.

However, the FACT that we have free-will shows that we do have the choice. But the material world is filled with all kinds of materially enjoyable things that it are so easy to get lost in and many like to wallow to their heart's content.

Freewill is shown by Adam and Eve being informed they may eat of EVERY tree in the garden, but then told not to eat of one of them. They could if they wanted, but they shouldn't from one because there will be consequences.

Adam tries to blame the woman and God by saying the WOMAN that YOU gave me gave me gave me of it and I did eat it.

The bottom line to me in the teaching of Christianity is:

God is willing to acknowledge there is evil in the world.

Christ is meant to be seen as God himself experiencing human life, taking full responsibility for all evil that came about in the world as a result of creation, and then enduring the guilt, shame, and punishment of condemnation associated with the results of that evil. However, being the source of all things, he is external and beyond those effects (real as they may be), and he also has the power to not only experience them, but then retain his original eternal existence through a resurrection process that only god understands and has the power to exercise. This, to Christians, means God also has the power and right, and can forgive Karmic sin and then co-exist spiritually within individuals to help guide them to entry into the "Kingdom of Heaven".

Those who accept they themselves have committed "sin" against others can "repent" and then be forgiven for their Karmic debt. Based on the sincerity of their "conversion", they then have the Holy Spirit of the Son and the Father to indwell them to help guide their lives from that point forward.

There's more.......but that's pretty much how I interpret the concept of original sin and the fact that evil is pretty much an exercise of free will in the more selfish ways one can live their lives.

Just a few of my thoughts,

Sojo

[jmccr8]

18 hours ago, Sojo said:

Personally, I think the idea of original sin was to try to explain the presence of evil in the world and why descendants of Adam/Eve were inclined to commit evil.

Obviously, evil in the world created by an all-knowing spirit creator would logically be the result of the creator's actions in the decision to allow it.

And, mankind being the self-centered personalities we are, choose to point that fact out in order to try to put the blame on "God" for evil's presence in the world.

However, the FACT that we have free-will shows that we do have the choice. But the material world is filled with all kinds of materially enjoyable things that it are so easy to get lost in and many like to wallow to their heart's content.

Freewill is shown by Adam and Eve being informed they may eat of EVERY tree in the garden, but then told not to eat of one of them. They could if they wanted, but they shouldn't from one because there will be consequences.

Adam tries to blame the woman and God by saying the WOMAN that YOU gave me gave me gave me of it and I did eat it.

The bottom line to me in the teaching of Christianity is:

God is willing to acknowledge there is evil in the world.

Christ is meant to be seen as God himself experiencing human life, taking full responsibility for all evil that came about in the world as a result of creation, and then enduring the guilt, shame, and punishment of condemnation associated with the results of that evil. However, being the source of all things, he is external and beyond those effects (real as they may be), and he also has the power to not only experience them, but then retain his original eternal existence through a resurrection process that only god understands and has the power to exercise. This, to Christians, means God also has the power and right, and can forgive Karmic sin and then co-exist spiritually within individuals to help guide them to entry into the "Kingdom of Heaven".

Those who accept they themselves have committed "sin" against others can "repent" and then be forgiven for their Karmic debt. Based on the sincerity of their "conversion", they then have the Holy Spirit of the Son and the Father to indwell them to help guide their lives from that point forward.

There's more.......but that's pretty much how I interpret the concept of original sin and the fact that evil is pretty much an exercise of free will in the more selfish ways one can live their lives.

Just a few of my thoughts,

Sojo

Hi Sojo

I enjoyed the way you expressed your perspective even if my opinion might differ somewhat. To me god doesn't mean the same thing as it does to most. Weakness as far as I am concerned is when the body rules the life and mind of an individual usuaĺly everyone gets tempted or seduced at some time and strength is walking away more experienced in life.

Humans have existed and lived in groups, intelligent enough to understand potential and realize it. It is a given that they would teach what was known in order to survive both socially and environmentally. Most religions and philosophies are founded on man's observations on man but now could be recorded, reviewed, edited and taught. There have been suggestions that cave paintings were a teaching aid to help tell a story.