The Flood has… begun. Not much more to say to introduce the latter bit of the wonderfully moral second part of Genesis 7.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet, 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
My Commentary
OK, Noah’s 600. Sure, whatever. I guess I’ll let that slide.
The springs began to swell and god opened the floodgates of heaven. Regardless of the meteorological accuracy (or lack thereof) with the whole thing, something seems wrong here. Why did the rivers swell before god made it rain?
And the “how” of rain is off. Combined with the creation story in Genesis 1, it is fairly clear that god inspired Moses, in the writing of these books (even though it covers the death of Moses, but screw that for now) to say that there was water above the heavens. In other words, there was Earth, which was flat. Above that was the sky, which was the firmament separating waters from waters. So, there was water above the sky and god let it fall onto the Earth. Whatever.
So, it’s raining for 40 days and nights. We all know that part of the yarn. It is interesting to see, however, that god says here that Moses has a pair of every kind of animal, when, in 7:2 it says “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate”.
Then everything on Earth dies except Noah and his family. The Flood covers the whole Earth for 150 days and, oddly enough leaves no evidence of this at all when it is done.
So, apart from being Morally questionable, scientifically questionable and self-contradictory, the story of the flood has left no evidence of it ever happening. How odd?
lol, I have a question, why do you keep posting these?
Are you trying to save us?
If so, what from?
You don't think Christians test their faith and think about this stuff?
If you don't believe, that's fine, so why do you feel it necessary to point out your opinion of what is incorrect when it comes to something you could care less about?
I keep posting them mainly because I enjoy writing them and discussing them. Partially, I want to challenge, to the best of my ability, the argument of biblical innerancy.
I'm sure Christians think about this sort of thing. Naturally, the perspective is different when you start out believing in it.
Religion is not something that I couldn't care less about. I find it fascinating. It is also very likely that I will be strongly affected by the religious beliefs of others throughout my life. So far, I haven't encountered anything extreme, but it is there.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Well it's your choice it just doesn't make much sense to me.
Just because we don't think God is there doesn't mean he is, just because we thinkl he's not there doesn't mean he isn't we'll see, or we won't.
I could be wrong, but I think you are saying that our desires or beliefs regarding god do not affect his existence. If this is what you're saying, then I couldn't agree more.
You write about what interests you. Religion interests me. Would you say a Classics Student at college was wasting his time because Greek Civilization no longer exists? It is something they are interested in. And, like Greek Myths, religion, specifically Christianity in the U.S. is very prevalent in the culture and most people hold some sort of faith in god. This affects me.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
What I'm saying is you're providing what you think is evidence that the Bible is inaccurate in your view.
The only reason I would think you would do such a thing is to try and get people to agree with you, otherwise all you're doing is stating your opinion and that's fine, but you've done it more than once.
And what I'm saying about Christians testing their faith already thinking about these things, you're most likely not going to help any one change their view.
If any Christian changed his view based on someones opinion that doesn't have faith in God than in my opinion he doesn't know what it is to have faith in God himself because it says in the Bible you have to have faith and by having faith you do what God commands and by following his commands he will manifest himself to us, but you have to have faith and through faith do what he commands us to in order to truly understand his word.
Or, perhaps, like I said, am interested in the subject, enjoy writing these and enjoy the discussions that usually follow. Some people agree. Others don't. That's why the discussion is interesting.
I highly doubt that any Religious person would suddenly lose their faith as a result of reading my posts.
And finally, the challenge remains to those who call the bible inerrant. Of course, I don't think any of them have ever responded on one of these blogs, but one day, they might.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
I'm not sure why you care what other people post or why they post it. There's a time and place to post things like this and this site is that place.
Tabias-
Isn't that the entire point? To get your opinion across the mass amount of land that separates us and allow ourselves to be immersed in others ideas? Damn...I took the wrong job.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Stating your opinion is fine, and it's fine to do it an amount of time.
But in my eyes, it seems as if he's doing what he accuses Christians of doing themselves and that is trying to converting people to their belief.
He isn't trying to convert anyone. No where in his blog does it mention a punishment for not believing. No where in his blog does he say that he has the one true answer. He is simply taking biblical passages and analyzing them, something everyone's allowed to do.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Sure, I'm not trying to convert people. DEATH TO THE RELIGIOUS. cough cough. Ahem. Yes. Indeed.
Alright. :-) I figured out how to use simple html! Yeah!
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
You're right, there is no evidence for the flood. Unless of course all the links below are talking about evidence for the flood.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/index.htm...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/the_flood.shtml
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldw...
http://www.freewebs.com/bibletruth/noahsflood.htm
I could probably come up with a hundred more websites like these that talk about the evidence for the flood, but I have a life so I'll just leave it at this :) I think you get the point though. You claim that "the story of the flood has left no evidence of it ever happening." Is unfounded. If you want to make such a big claim you're going to have to back it up.
Unfortunately we can't take those seriously because they are all Bible based, they offer biased evidence, from christian scientists. Now if christian and nonchristian scientists showed me the evidence, i'd believe it, but I won't belive stuff given to me by people of one religion because they will keep all evidence to support their claim and throw out anything that doesn't work with their opinion, making it outstandigly biased.
If I don't believe in god what makes you think I would consider bible-based evidence as valid, seeing as it has no validity if god does not exist.
Can you come up with any geological evidence that a world flood occured? Where are the fossils? Where are the sediments?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
I would have to say that I believe in the flood theory. I know, I know, but hear me out.
When you think about it, every religion has their own flood story, dating back before Greece. Something that prominant in history, so widespead, is bound to have SOME truth to it. And, let's face it, the Christians aren't exactly creative. They probably stole the story and made it their own.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Floods happen. They happen a lot. Combine this with the fact that civilizations tended to begin in very close proximity to large quantities of water and you have a very good result for similar flood mythology. Couple that with the fact that myths tend to spread to surrounding cultures and it becomes more believable for the similarities to be there.
I'm sure that there is some truth to it. There was probably one hell of a big flood in some area that the occupants considered to be the whole world.
And to be fair , the Noachian flood is Jewish Mythology. The Hebrews stole it first. Or, at least, before the Christians.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
The flood isn't Christian. It's Jewish. They just stole the OT to give credibility to their savior.
And I agree, to a point. I'm not sure how I feel about a worldwide flood, but I don't doubt for a minute that there was a massive flood in Mesopotamia, where a number of the myths originate.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
The flood myth proliferates history (While I hate this site, the myths are about 90% correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology) ). I have no doubt that there were floods, but as Jsaj said, not of Noachian creation. Great floods are highly likely when you live on the rivers...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
But you said that the Christians stole the myth. That's not accurate. If anything, the Israelites stole it from the Utnapishtim myth. That's what I was correcting. I didn't say that the Noachian flood was the only correct myth, or that it was the first. Just that it did NOT originate with the Christians.
And I pretty much said exactly the same thing you said in the second half of your comment, so...
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
" Partially, I want to challenge, to the best of my ability, the argument of biblical innerancy.
I'm sure Christians think about this sort of thing. Naturally, the perspective is different when you start out believing in it."
I've decided to answer back with a post of my own on this subject because I've seen this post and another one as well on the flood. So be prepared!
I'll be looking forward to it.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
"So, apart from being Morally questionable, scientifically questionable and self-contradictory, the story of the flood has left no evidence of it ever happening. How odd?"
I'll skip morality here, since we already covered that on the last one. Let's look at evidence.
The geological record does not lack evidence of cataclysmic floods, it clearly shows evidence of several, and implies even more. Gulf of Mexico, South China Sea, Hudson’s Bay and several other circular bodies of water are all considered to be impact craters where comets or asteroids struck the earth. Each of these resulted hundreds or thousands of cubic miles of water being vaporized. Most of that water fell back to earth as rain each time.
The obvious examples above all struck land or a shore line, and occurred far too long ago to be the source for this story or many others that describe similar floods. Most of the earth is covered with water. Thus most of the impacts have occurred in mid ocean. Such a mid ocean impact would have easily caused the events described including the rise of rivers before the rain began due to tsunami. Because of lack of a visible crater an impact such as this could have happened in the time range attributed to this story.
200 days of high water would not have left any significant fossil record. Yet evidence abounds that much of dry land today was once a sea bed. In fact most marine fossils found by man have been on land. So we are near certain that floods that could match the account have happened yet you are claiming that science has 'no evidence.' That is strangely reminiscent of the 'discoveries' by the Christian scientists debunking evolution. Do you understand that the scientific method only works when those applying it abandon their preconceived notions?
This story is repeated in so many versions around the world that it can be considered more reliable than many much more recent historical accounts. The perspective it is written from is that of a witness, not a Deity. Thus the water covering the highest mountains can only be describing the highest mountains known to the author.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
No one denies that big, cataclysmic floods happen. I also do not deny that much of the Earth's surface was, at one point below Sea Level. I do deny that, sometime in the last six thousand years, there was a world-wide flood that eliminated all land life except for Noah and his family and some animals he took on an arc.
And, I may not be a scientist, but the destruction of all land-bound life except for the afore mentioned group of lucky bastards would probably leave some sort of fossil evidence.
(quickly under the breath) Morgoth.
But seriously, I agree with you on the necessity of bringing that up again. Even though I just did.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Literal truth aside, the ages attributed to some biblical figures seems to be adjustments made to create a direct lineage from Adam where they in fact have no records for a lengthy period. That probably seemed important to the authors at the time, since inherited power was the accepted way to pass on authority. So, if the record was absent for a few generations they may have just extended the life of some previous person to match up.
150 to 200 days under water, and most of the carcasses would be consumed, or floated from their original locations. The thing about fossil records is that finding them is a bit dictated by chance. Fossil fuels like coal and oil are found in deposits, rather than spread evenly. This implies, but does not prove, that the cataclysm that killed the life forms that became oil also may have piled them in one area, and perhaps even buried them.
Prior knowledge of the flood by Noah is also something that requires forces beyond our knowledge. I am accutely aware that things I do not understand are at work in the world. There is obviously more to this story than meets the eye, that may be because it is fictional in some details, but......
I guess the best I can say is lack of knowledge is not understanding. it is a place where speculation rules.
To deny the flood is a bit of speculation. The only thing dating all of these stories to the past 6,000 years is a lineage which may be less than accurate. If the flood was in the middle east the flood was world wide to the authors. Just like today, the best human understanding was limited then.
There is a problem when you admit that parts of the bible may be incorrect. If I shouldn't take all of it as literal truth, then why should I take any of it as literal truth, including the bit about the existence of god. If I should take some of it as truth, which parts.
Are you saying that it is reasonable to think that a world flood would leave absolutely no evidence whatsoever?
I mean, we have evidence that other floods happened. Why should that same evidence not exist for this flood?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
No matter which side of an indefinite question you prefer closing your mind to improvements in your view is a mistake.
---
"There is a problem when you admit that parts of the bible may be incorrect. If I shouldn't take all of it as literal truth, then why should I take any of it as literal truth, including the bit about the existence of god. If I should take some of it as truth, which parts."
Point me toward any scientific text, history, or ANY book without errors. If you do I will doubt that you are right. Men wrote them all. Men are prone to error. Does that mean reading and study are without value?
Why try to simplify this subject beyond the many complex subjects who it is over?
The only reason for a person that does not believe in God to insist on biblical inerrancy would be to create a 'straw man.' Refer to your own blog for more on this and other fallacies.
Look at everything you think you understand with repentance toward the truth. Or is that too Christian a concept?
---
"Are you saying that it is reasonable to think that a world flood would leave absolutely no evidence whatsoever?
I mean, we have evidence that other floods happened. Why should that same evidence not exist for this flood?"
Once again you seem to be more superstitious than the writers of this book. There is plenty of evidence of repeated floods. Yet you claim no evidence for some reason. Didn't you just admit the evidence existed a couple of posts back? Which flood is being described here might be a more unbiased question. Insisting that it is from one that no evidence supports is just twisted. I don't understand how that could be your position.
3,000 years ago how far from their birth place did the average human travel? You may as well criticize the grammar as critique them thinking that 'the world' was all the world they knew. Listen to the 'voice' of the author. This is written as by a person retelling a story passed down through many tellers. It is not written by God. Only a few statements are attributed to that being. It is also not written by Noah or his sons. They are described as third persons. It does not seem hard to see this as a retold tale. How could it be perfectly accurate? Magic?
I'll respond at greater length later. I seem to be having slight vision problems at the moment. Right now, I will respond to this, because I saw it.
"Point me toward any scientific text, history, or ANY book without errors. If you do I will doubt that you are right. Men wrote them all. Men are prone to error. Does that mean reading and study are without value?" Science can be tested. You can test theories proposed by the book and, if they are wrong, you can discredit that book as being incorrect. History, to a lesser extent can be verified by looking at ruins and manuscripts and the like.
When the claims made in the bible that can be examined are proved false, what reason do we have to believe the parts of the bible that cannot?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
"When the claims made in the bible that can be examined are proved false, what reason do we have to believe the parts of the bible that cannot?"
First of all the lack of evidence is far from proof. Proof would require some definite knowledge. With out a time machine the best we have is evidence which can only provide some indication of what is more or less likely. Written accounts are often not just wrong, but outright lies. Truth being stranger than fiction it is quite often impossible to tell which is incorrect, a lie, or the plain truth.
Even contradictions are not disproof. Absent other evidence there is no way to tell which of the two is right. A seeming contradiction could also be a misunderstanding, or mistranslation at some point along the way. It is possible that anthropology students 4,000 years from now might read the exact words of this blog. 4,000 years ago the exact words were only saved if someone took the time to carve them into a piece of stone. Most records we use from that era have been translated, and copied under circumstances that seem to be more likely to introduce inaccuracy, or even the politically correct thought of the scribe.
So I will assume that you intend to say: when claims in the bible seem extremely unlikely based on evidence, what reason do we have to believe the parts of the bible that cannot (be confirmed or denied by evidence)?
Well there is no reason to believe anything you do not understand. My lack of understanding has always drawn me toward things. I really do WANT to understand. As I read through this book I look for things I do understand. I also look for stories and explanations that can improve my understanding. Unsupported history I take with a grain of salt, whether it is in this book or any other. If there is corroboration for a story my doubt is reduced, but not eliminated. I see many morality tales in this book. There are some places that I do not get what it is driving at, and some places where I can only guess. I’ll try to be clear if I am confident, confused, or inspired.
You seem to be trying to disprove god by this study. I find that interesting because I had that same goal the only time I read it cover to cover. There is more than an obvious story about a deity here. There is also a riddle, and many extremely insightful illustrations of the nature of reality. The Noah story isn’t too interesting to me. I think we’ll have more fun with Job, Ecclesiastes, or even Psalms or Proverbs.
When You get to the gospels there is really a lot to dig into.
Forgive the vagueness of my language. If something cannot be shown to be true based on credible evidence to a point where there can be no reasonable doubt. I shall say proved to save time typing and reading. (No, that's not meant to be insulting. Just worried it might come off that way.)
We know (pretty damn likely) that the Universe was not created in seven days. The language in Hebrew is very specific that it is days. We also know that the order that things were made is different. We know that there isn't water above the Earth, being held up by the sky. We know that the Earth isn't flat. If we accept that the description of the creation is wrong, then why should we not think that the existence of god is wrong. If we just say that it is a metaphor, then why not just say that god is a metaphor.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
"the Universe was not created in seven days. The language in Hebrew is very specific that it is days."
The language is also a bit poetic. I like to point out that this version does not give the technical details to replicate the feat yourself. A summary is not disproved by omitting details.
---
"there isn't water above the Earth, being held up by the sky."
What are comets made of? Lacking the science of celestial mechanics this phrase could be the best description the author had of how orbits work. I'm just broadening the possibilities. The actual meaning could be one that neither of us is considering.
---
"If we just say that it is a metaphor, then why not just say that god is a metaphor."
Now we are getting to it. God is a metaphor IMHO. The origins of the Hebrew religion did not allow a name, then they had one that you were not allowed to say, then they went into having Jehova Jahway and now we use the very generic God. Any word is inherently misleading and tends to diminish the creator and controller.
Remember the Gods this replaces lived on mountains and threw lightening, or lived in your fireplace, or were the Sun. This Ethereal creator was a CONCEPT. The concept evolved over time to become more and more like the Gods being replaced.
Imagine the most brilliant Jewish doctors and scientists of today working at herding sheep. Not much education, and nothing but time to contemplate. This is what they came up with. Naturally it was dumbed down by the centuries of its being used to collect tithes. Much of the meaning is hidden in the riddles, because the villagers would have torn them apart if they tried to actually explain it. There are still places on this planet where heresy carries a death sentence.
Isaac Newton’s formulas on gravity are all known to only be approximately true. That does not diminish the brilliance he used to create them. This book contains some portions that might look very primitive, but have we exceeded the teachings of Jesus with science?
If god is a concept, what does he represent? Does he represent the beginning of the Universe, or our planet? Does he represent the origin of mankind? Does he represent truth or love or goodness? Does he represent the Universe? Why does this give him the properties of Omnipotence or Omniscience? Why does this give him the ability to hear and answer prayers? Why would this give him the power to bring people to heaven or send them to hell? If god was just used to explain what people could not explain, then why worship him? What's worshipable about the unexplained? And does this mean that he has become less as more things have become known?
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Having a lot to answer, and despising skinny boxes my conjectures are continued on the main thread.
I would like to start off by apologizing ahead of time, if in any way, I come across rude or blunt.... that is not my intention.
I am currently supposed to be busy elsewhere... but I saw this blog and felt It imperative to make some sort of comment.
...... I find this blog both amusing and disturbing.(It is disturbing how little people actually know about facts and religion.) I really wish that you would take some time to research your subject before you write about it.
Honestly, I could go on for hours effectively refuting countless statements you've made in this blog.... sadly I don't have that kind of time.
I will, however, Inform you that, contrary to the statement you made in the last paragraph of your blog, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting "The flood".
There is evidence all over the world, infact.. Nearly every known religion makes reference to 'a world-wide flood' taking place around 4,600 yrs ago. (date coinsiding with that of the Bible)
The oldest living tree ever recorded is said to be roughly 4,600 yrs old.( date here is also supportive)
Contrary to the current beliefs of many well-known evolutionists, not only is the the Grand Canyon unsubstantial in supporting the "theory" of evolution; It is actually evidence to oppose it......a subject I would love to discuss more indepth when I have the time.....
.... but, continuing on with my point about the Grand Canyon...
After studying the "unique" formation of the Grand Canyon, it was found not unlike, infact quite nearly identical to, that found on much of the ocean floor.
If you wish to further delve into the apologetics surrounding the Bible and Christianiy
I would suggest authors such as: Ravi Zacharias, Ken Ham, or Josh McDowell
I can also refer an online site .... copy and paste:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp
it will take you to 'Answers in Genesis. org'
Nothing is more deceptive or more dangerous than the pretense of a desire to simplify government.
-Daniel Webster
Well, if you can give me better evidence than 'everyone else says so', I might take you a little more seriously. Give me some geological evidence.
My brain dies when I try to explain science. So I'm going to send you elsewhere for a coherently stated definition of the problem.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/northrup.htm
And for something without an annoying little boat at the top.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"If god is a concept, what does he represent? Does he represent the beginning of the Universe, or our planet?"
Not just a concept, Not just the beginning, not just our planet, maybe the whole universe IMHO.
"I am the alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end)."
---
"Does he represent the origin of mankind?"
Our understanding of the concept and its relevance to us starts there or soon after.
---
"Does he represent truth or love or goodness?"
Truth?!? Where have I heard that before? LOL. Equating God to love is very post gospels new testament. I can see that the way things really are is good, but some folks have a hard time with that one. What do you think?
---
"Does he represent the Universe?"
Yes, but there is a built in acceptance that the universe might be a sentient entity.
---
"Why does this give him the properties of Omnipotence or Omniscience?"
It does not seem unlikely for a self aware universe to have these characteristics to me. Do you think it is unreasonable to think it might?
---
"Why does this give him the ability to hear and answer prayers?"
This is a mysterious area. It seems obvious to me that praying benefits the one that does it, not God. Each individual is a part of God, and as each benefits and becomes more enlightened God is made greater (relative to what?). I could testify that prayer is more effective than I have any rational reason to expect it to be, but would not expect you to place any objective faith in my experiences. Perhaps the best way to visualize it is meditating thankfully for everything the world gives you, and with a desire to obey and love the truth. Read the description by Jesus (Absent the lord’s prayer). The amount of faith needed to do this seems very small, and in my experience the results are not at all harmful.
---
"Why would this give him the power to bring people to heaven or send them to hell?"
God and man are spiritual beings. Heaven and Hell seem perfectly obvious to me as spiritual places. That they exist mentally does not mean they do not physically, it just means they do not have to be physical to be real.
---
"If god was just used to explain what people could not explain, then why worship him?"
For your own good you should respect and obey the truth. Even (or especially) the truth you do not understand. I'm not aware of any part of worship that goes beyond that, and other than feeding the priests I can't figure the animal sacrifice thing at all.
---
"What's worshipable about the unexplained? And does this mean that he has become less as more things have become known?"
No I think the more you understand the more important (and difficult) it becomes to accept how little you actually know. Humility is just as important as it ever was to a realistic perspective.
""I am the alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end)."" What does this mean and why should I worship it?
"Truth?!? Where have I heard that before? LOL. Equating God to love is very post gospels new testament. I can see that the way things really are is good, but some folks have a hard time with that one. What do you think?" I don't equate god to anything real. To me, he is what people used to explain what they couldn't otherwise explain and then spiraled out of control.
"Yes, but there is a built in acceptance that the universe might be a sentient entity." Then, where did god come from?
"It does not seem unlikely for a self aware universe to have these characteristics to me. Do you think it is unreasonable to think it might?" I think it is logically impossible. Omnipotence on its own is impossible. Can god create a mountain he can't move? Omniscience is tough. How could he experience surprise? Even if that weren't the case, he couldn't have both properties without a cancellation.
I don't deny that prayer can be useful to the pray-er. But I think there are psychological reasons for that. I don't think god has anything to do with it beyond the belief in the entity.
"God and man are spiritual beings. Heaven and Hell seem perfectly obvious to me as spiritual places. That they exist mentally does not mean they do not physically, it just means they do not have to be physical to be real." I don't know what this has to do with what I said. If god is the Universe, why would that give him the power to send souls to heaven or hell?
"For your own good you should respect and obey the truth. Even (or especially) the truth you do not understand. I'm not aware of any part of worship that goes beyond that, and other than feeding the priests I can't figure the animal sacrifice thing at all." But I have no reason to believe that god is the truth. I have had no experience that would make me believe that god exists.
"No I think the more you understand the more important (and difficult) it becomes to accept how little you actually know. Humility is just as important as it ever was to a realistic perspective." Agreed in a way. I don't think that means, however, that we shouldn't try to know more.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"""I am the alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end)."" What does this mean and why should I worship it?"
It means the individual speaking is equal to all things collectively, or the truth.
if It is a claim you might not accept its validity. As a definition it is more universaly valid, since not accepting it means you don't think there is a reality. The word worship is one I addressed, perhaps not to your satisfaction? Tell me the definition you apply to it and I might be able to do better.
---
"I can see that the way things really are is good, but some folks have a hard time with that one. What do you think?"
Your answer here inserts the god concept and thus evades the question which concerns reality or the truth. Do you have an opinion on reality being good?
---
""the universe might be a sentient entity." Then, where did god come from?"
That one is a stumper. I don't even know where Hydrogen came from other than it was 'created' or 'big banged' into existence. There is some fairly reasonable scientific speculation on how things came together after you have a huge amount of hydrogen in supermassive clumps. Where did that 'Bang" or 'creator' come from? You have me on that one. Any ideas?
---
"Omnipotence on its own is impossible. Can god create a mountain he can't move?"
Could be impossible. It is easy to imagine he doesn't want to make one. It is also easy to think that omnipotence would be at will, and thus he could make or unmake anything including the ability. It is easy to imagine parralell universes in which it is possible in some and not in others. That is with my limited human imagination and a couple thousand or less scifi stories read. This is a big (some say infinite) universe. There is an awful lot more than I can explain or even imagine that is possible. If you feel better thinking that only things you can understand are possible I apologize for introducing any doubt into that secure schema.
---
"How could he experience surprise?"
Why would he have to? I agree that it seems that you must be ignorant of some thing to be suprised by it.
---
"If god is the Universe, why would that give him the power to send souls to heaven or hell?"
OK I'll try again.
Consciencesness experiences the world subjectively. The key decision in the teachings of Christ is to love the truth, and look for good in all things, or to rebel against the truth and seek to satisfy your greeds and lusts.
If you choose the first you are assured that "all things work together for good to those who believe." In my experience this is true. That experience is limited, and subjective. You would have to try it yourself to confirm the validity.
If you choose the second you will never find enough of what your greed desires to satisfy that greed. Too much money, too much sex, and too much power are never achieved by those that seek them. This leads to frustration and a bevy of fleas accompany which ever lust you chase. I've seen more of this side of the decision than is good for me as well. Again my experience is limited and subjective.
Taken to extremes this is suficient to create your own mental Heaven or Hell. I may read this differently, but from what I understand God does not send you, you send yourself to these places. Reread the first answer along with this. You may not agree, but do you get what I'm trying to say?
---
"I have no reason to believe that god is the truth. I have had no experience that would make me believe that god exists."
Even as a concept? I understand that it may seem unreasonable to personify him. I also realize the concept is only valid if the universe has a creator and controller. Do you accept that the universe exists? Do you accept that there are laws that govern it? Those two are at least possibilities to you aren't they?
---
"I don't think that means, however, that we shouldn't try to know more."
Absolutely agreed. The only reason to be self aware is to seek knowledge and experiences. The teachings of Jesus are intended to help that process, not impede it. Enlightenment is the goal.
Thankyou for these questions, I am enjoying this conversation.
1- All you seem to be saying with this Alpha Omega thing is that god is everything. Why should I accept that?
2- I don't think of reality as good or bad. IT just is. Sometimes things happen in it that we consider good, Sometimes things hapen we consider bad. But reality is far to massive and complex to be merely good or bad.
3- Allow me to elaborate. If god cannot reate this mountain, then his powers are limited. However, if he can create this mountain, his powers are still limited because there is something he can't do. His desire or lack thereof to create this mountain is irrelavent.
4-I know that there are things that I don't understand, but so what? Just BECAUSE I don't understand something doesn't mean that I should accept that it exists when I see no reason to do so. Further more, I have no reason to believe that the laws of reality would change for anything or anyone.
5- He would have to expirience surprise to know everything. He would have to know surprise. Because an Omnipotent being knows what is coming, he could not be surprised and therefore, he could not know the emotion.
6- Well, in my limited expirience, I am content withmy life without believing or following Christ. I will accept your answer for now.
7- Of course god exists as a concept. So does big foot. So does Zeus. That doesn't mean that he exists as a real thing. Just because I think that something exists doesn't mean that it does. The same goes for everyone else.
8- Yes I accept that there is a Universe with certain physical laws. I do not, however, see a need for a creator and controller in that Universe.
9- I, too, am enjoying this conversation.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
1- The whole thing is a definition which is a hypothesis testable by faith based experiments the results of which are subjective. I think without conducting the experiments yourself you probably will not find any value in the hypothesis, I know I did not.
2- "But reality is far to massive and complex to be merely good or bad." That boils down the point I was making about judging this concept as immoral in the last blog. I can see why you think this, but the philosophy we are discussing asserts that realitys' author is the only source of all good. Here is a secular explaination of the concept I attempted yesterday.
http://www.progressiveu.org/154720-love-the-truth
3- "His desire or lack thereof to create this mountain is irrelavent."
Sure, I am familiar with that take on this paradox, but if a being is omnipotent how could ANYTHING except that beings desire matter?
4- "I have no reason to believe that the laws of reality would change for anything or anyone."
So those laws might be omnipotent?
5- "He would have to expirience surprise to know everything."
We'll he invented it, and can observe it perfectly. He would also be unable to experience ignorance, but could observe it. If you were omniscient your observation would be almost equal to or even better than what we less aware creatures call experience.
6- Just as well that we leave it until the text says something. My theory sure does not rule anyone elses out when it comes to heaven and hell. The whole life after death thing seems suspiciously useful for gathering in donations in the religion business.
7- Agreed.
8- Where did it come from? The 'it has always been here' possibility is the best alternative IMHO. The problem is that observation and mathematical conjecture says 'Big Bang' which is a creation.
9- Good! Let's go on to another chapter. I favor skipping ahead as I have said before, but the sequential method is sensible.
1- Well, I did believe in god for a while. I just never found anything to substantiate that belief.
2- I read the blog. I have no problem with pursuit of the truth and a desire to be truthful and all that jazz. I have just never expirienced anything that would make me think that god is truth.
3- Either he can make the mountain or he can't. His desires wouldn't change that, regardless of whether or not he would choose to make such a mountain.
4- Well, I wouldn't say that. Merely unbending.
5- I shall conceed that point. The omniscience argument, I feel, is one of the weaker arguments.
6- Ho Ho Ho Ho. I couldn't agree more. :-)
7- Doesn't seem to be much a need
8- Well, what can you do? Either he existed forever, in which case I ask why can't existence be eternal, or he created himself and why can't existence create its self.
9- As soon as I recover from the sudden temperature drop.....
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
9: Good, keep going. You should also write another blog, or 7, and debate more.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I think I've been fairly active in the debates. :-(
I do have a couple of blogs in the works, but, like I said, I've been feeling a little ill so I haven't done a lot of work on them the last couple of days. I just churned out that Greek one because I wanted to do it before the Topic of the Week was over....
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
You know what I mean. You've been active, but if you're going to be my hero, you're going to have to do better. The Greek one was good, but it could have been better. I've got a side project for the two of us, should you be interested, starting Dec. 16. So, lemme know if you'd be willing to take on hard work, though pretty scarcely, and we'll get started on setting that up.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I'm aware that the Greek thing wasn't great. I was just struck with the idea and decided to get it out before the topic of the week changed.
I should be up for your scheme, but I won't commit myself without knowing more. ;-/
On a positive, I guess, note, this blog seems to have been one of my most successful comment-wise, although I'm not sure why....
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
It's right up your alley. Group collaboration on political theory and analysis of progressive ideals, philosophy made simple, presented to the masses.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Sounds like a nice mix of good fun and snobbish elitism. Damn straight that's right up my alley.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
No snobs. Elitism, possibly, but not the snobby kind. It will be a grand masterpiece of my political agenda, the kind of thing people will want when I try to get into office...to dismantle the government from the bottom up.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I stand corrected. Well, un-snobbish elitism is just as good. :-)
Thanks for letting me play a part in your master plans....
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Atheist is some one who is not willing to open his heart to know the Truth, For he is Deceived by the Devil not to have an open heart to the truth. For the Devil will Deceive in ways we least expect. For the Devil dose not want anyone to know that God truly dose excise. Remember that those that seek for the Truth are they that find it .and we all have to look for our selves. Then once ye have look then Judge, Amen
Was not the devil one of the most devout followers of God himself? Did he not fall from Grace? Would not the Devil, a creation of God, then be good, inherently? Does the Devil have free will? We must assume so, as he fell from Grace for a choice, but was he ever really an Archangel? Why would the Devil seek revenge upon God for casting him to Earth? Why would the Devil seek to infect the souls of man?
To me, it makes no sense for there to be a Devil, as that would suggest that God is neither good or bad. You see, everything in life must be balanced: for a "good' God to exist, a "bad" "God" must exist for every moment of time that the "good" God existed. According to the Bible, God existed before the Angels, therefore, God existed before the Fallen One. In that, we must only conclude that God, having been there before all else, cannot be "good," but must be a mixture, 50/50, of Good and Evil.
Also, dose? Why are you talking about "dose"s? Why not "does?" And, what happened to proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation? What about proper capitalization?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
In the OT, god claimed to be the source of everything, both good and evil.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
And by good logic, he'd have to be! He is responsible for the creation of the devil. He alone is responsible for all the evil in the world. He alone is responsible for all the shitty people born to this world. God has a lot of 'splanin' to do.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Lucy!
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Please, PLEASE... learn how to spell does.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!