Mageth

BTW, I would add to the above that mythos (to borrow a term from Armstrong) attempts to answer questions about existence that science/rationality are simply not equipped to answer to most people's satisfaction.

To be more or less on-topic, a point of my posts is that a "contradiction" I see is that the Bible, and the Biblical God, can be explained by appealing to human nature and by examining the history of religion, God-belief, and the Bible; an extant Biblical God is simply not necessary as an explanation.

No, this does not prove the non-existence of said God, but again it serves to support disbelief in the Christian God.

Magus55

I only believe the flood happened. I don't hold strictly to it happening exactly around 2400 B.C. The Bible never specifically claims a date so it doesn't automatically mean an error.

Mageth

jbernier:

I've been enjoying this discussion. I must say I respect your theological position - it seems quite well thought out and reasonable, and is certainly eloquently presented. A nice change for this discussion board, I must say.

Magus55

Taken out of context, as usual. You forgot a couple verses.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the
creation.

As we see in Verse 2, Peter's epistle is directed to those in the future. And as we see in verse 3, Peter says that in the last days, people will ask Why hasn't he returned yet ( which is so commonly spoken these days - the age of skepticism). Peter didn't live in the last days.

jbernier

I would agree that Christian theology is something of an underdog in terms of philosophical thought. The truth is that many of its key tenets can be best described as improbable. I see this as a good thing for Christian faith, though. See, for a long time (1200 years or so) Christian theology was the basis for western thought. I think Christian thinks got sloppy as a result. They did not need to be imaginative, creative or innovative. They did not have to seriously reflect on problems within the Christian theological tradition. Now, with Christian theology being subjected to constant, rigourous and learned critiques I think that Christian theology cannot afford to be sloppy. I think that, in the long term, Christian thought will become increasingly more vibrant and innovative simply because of the fact that it is being challenged regularly. In this sense I think that Christians (and perhaps theists in general) need atheists precisely because atheists will ask the hard questions that Christians often do not think of themselves (and I would say that this probably works in reverse).

Of course, I am a bit biased. One of my closest friends, whom I have known since grade 9, is an atheist (or agnostic - he kinda moves back and forth a bit). I can honestly say that I have learned more about Christian faith from him than any other person - simply because of the very challenging discussions we have had over the years.

Mageth

A prime example of insisting on interpreting myth as literal history.

In so doing, one loses most if not all significant metaphorical meaning of the myth - though I don't particularly care for some of the metaphorical meaning that can be gleaned from the Flood Myth.

Regarding the Flood Myth, I suppose one could say that, metaphorically, it signifies that the God of the Bible is all-powerful and can thus destroy the world if he so wishes, and can show mercy on whom he wishes, though not to be read that he did or would destroy the world. Indeed, he makes a covenant with man after the flood, promising to not do so in the future. Note that, when taken as history, it indicates that God did destroy the world, showing very little mercy indeed, and may destroy it again if we don't shape up, in spite of the covenant.

The mythical interpretation leaves the question of God's wrathful nature open, simply indicating he could destroy us if he so wishes, but has promised not to, indicating a merciful God. The literal interpretation, however, presents God as a wrathful, destructive God to be feared.

Metaphorically, God comes out better.

Clivedurdle

I was also brought up as a xian, was bon again, baptised in the holy spirit...

I am puzzled why you are holding onto the concept of God. It is not necessary and is probably counter productive in terms of how we may live together justly. John Rawl's a theory of justice is a more interesting approach.

Basically I think there is no necessity for God. Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Mathematics have consistently reduced the areas "God" can operate in.

Social theory has as well.

Magus55

He showed mercy by giving the world over ahundred years to repent. God isn't obligated to show mercy. If He deems judgement is necessary and justified, He has every right to do it. And the Bible also describes the world as being pure evil. Now, we don't know exactly what the means from our time, but if most of the world were like Hitler, or would become like Hitler - would you want it to continue in that form?

Mageth

Peter didn't write 2 Peter, either.

2 Peter was a late epistle, probably a 2nd century epistle. By that time, it was obvious that Jesus' return wasn't going to happen as soon as he seems to have indicated, a belief held widely by the 1st Century Christians, and strongly indicated by earlier books and epistles, including Paul's genuine epistles. 2 Peter is in part a response to the confusion this seemingly failed, or at best commonly misinterpreted, prophecy stirred up in the early Church.

funinspace

Unless you morph the time of the invasion of Canaan to some far out date, then the Bible (Genesis 5:3-28 and 5:32,11:10-26) does define the Flood. Do you agree that the Bible defines the period of time from Noah to Moses? What period would you attribute to the invasion of Canon, if you disagree with the general opinion of Bible Scholars?

DK