Doctor X

Wow . . . what a great thread!

I will only add to it by asking Magus a "why" question. He did, indeed, answer that he believes in the literal flood and he gave an honest answer as to why he believes in the Bible literally.

My question, Magnus--damn! I leave that to demonstrate that it must be a habit! Take a "free hit" on my name! Funny thing is the "n" on my keyboard sticks! Perhaps I am inspired or guided by [GET ON WITH IT!--Ed.]-- is why do you have a problem with doubt?

In other words, if you accept the Flood myths are myths--never happened--that the Bible was written by men--and all of that--why must that destroy your faith?

No, I am not setting you up for a "now-justify-unjust-suffering-HA!-HA!" if you were to respond you believe in a concept of a good "Big Something." I am just wondering why you have a problem, apparently with doubt.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Lobstrosity suggests an answer to where the water went . . . MARS!!

This is in a thread here on Noah's Flood!

Anyways, reading Mageth's post prior to this, I think it is important to uderstand that writers of myth did not necessarily believe in the "literal" truth of the story.

For example, Hammurapi and others link themselves to the gods--if not declare themselves as such--did they believe it? Did they do it for symbolic purposes? The Adam and Eve story has a "message"--much like Gilgamesh--why we are here, why we are mortal. The writers did not have to make take it literal, especially when you consider the puns.

Now the flood . . . some think the "whole story" is linked to the "sons of the gods [Bene elohim--Ed.] who "do da nasty" with women. Like the Sumerian/Babylonian myths, the humans became a bit noisy. The story of the flood is a good story. It has a message the writers preserved--"we can be so wicked Big Daddy could take notice."

It is an "amazing story"--how could they do that? What would it be like?

Did the scops who recited Beowulf believe a literal Grendel existed? Some may have, I am not sure others did or cared.

I sometimes wonder if centuries from now someone will wonder about the literal truth of a cyborg traveling back through time to kill the mother of a savior--"It must be true, they made him a governor!"

--J.D.

Godless Wonder

As it happens, I heard a relevant reference to water on Mars on NPR today on the way home from work... (Hi Ho! Google! Away!)

Magus55

I thought i answered that? If you accept that the bible is full of errors and untrustworthy, we can't really know anything about God or His plan. And its said that the Bible is the word of God, so if its not the word of God, its a lie. And faith can't rest on lies, because God is only truth.

Mathetes

I find it surprising that you guys (Mageth and Doctor X) believe that the myth writers thought of the stories as non-literal. Everyone in the Bible seems to be taking all the stories that happened before them as 100 % literal, even when it starts entering history (I think that it is the consensus that around the book of Kings/Chronicles things start having some appearence of real history).

We were discussing the Noah story. So you say that the guy that was writing it and reworking the sumerian myth already knew that it was an allegory of rebirth, and he did not intend anybody to take it literally. I find this really difficult to believe.

What about subsequent generations? Do you think that the rabbis at the time of the Maccabees or even at the time of Jesus thought of the tale as allegories that never happened??? That they would teach in the synagoges, "you know, this is the story of Noah, but the flood never happened and it is intended to teach us a myth of rebirth, etc..."? This is even more difficult for me to believe.

My belief (well, call it my speculation) is that everyone, from the beginning, though it to be true, because they did not know any better. I do not think that anybody invented the whole thing from scratch, but it had a core that came from somewhere (campfires of Neolithic people, who knows?) that grew in the telling. Everyone that transmitted and added something knew that they were decorating a story with new details, but they honestly believed the core of it to be actual facts that had really happened. Then the Hebrew writer adapted it to the Hebrew audience to teach them how powerful Yahweh was, but he really believed that the core was actual history.

This is what seems more plausible to me, at least.

Biff the unclean

It forces them to extend their magical explanations to the point that they become completely laughable.
But we don't see that happening.
Note that Magus himself, while proposing magical causes for the Flood, seems to be insisting that there must be evidence for the flood that we haven't recognized yet
That didn't last even long enough for me to reply. He took the fall back position that if there was a God then the God could do anything.
Compare this to the behavior of anyone who suffers from a phobia. The Monk TV show comes to mind. This person has all the information available to show them that they are wrong but because of this disorder they reject it.
There is no possible way you could fall off the observation deck of the Empire State building, but that means nothing to those with a fear of heights.
Those with that phobia reject the fact that the steel fencing makes them perfectly safe

I'd like to think of it as painting the Flood proponent into a corner from which there is no escape. Either accept the Flood as a totally magical event, and thus one for which there is no rational argument or evidence for, or give up and accept it for the myth it is.
And he has done just that, accepted it as a totally magical event.
He even gets angry that others consider magic ridiculous and feels he is being called a moron. How similar a reaction is this to someone with a phobia? "You think I'm stupid because I'm afraid of a little mouse!!"

Once you insist that a miracle happened insisting that a bunch of miracles happened isn't embarassing as you have already devoided yourself of reason

cjack

This seems very plausible.

You've also got to remember the context of the times. As was mentioned earlier, there are some fantastic and impossible things in the "history" books of that general time period.

We're looking at this from a 21st Century perspective, where we know the Earth is round, orbits the Sun, etc. We have a wealth of information and a global awareness that most people 2000 years ago couldn't begin to comprehend.

The idea of a global flood would be totally acceptable for a writer who didn't have an accurate idea of the size and shape of the Earth, much less how much water would be needed to drown the whole thing!

Not that they were any less intelligent, mind you...they just had less information to work with.

Demigawd

What was that you said earlier about circular reasoning, Magus55? The reason I ask is I think your above statement is a much better example of that fallacy.

cjack

As demigawd pointed out...circular reasoning.

What I don't get is the black/white "its either all true or all lies" attitude.

That's the thing that's so frustrating. There's no middle ground with fundies. No compromise is ever possible, becuase they're never willing to admit that even a tiny bit of their worldview might be something other than what they think it is.

Magus55

And this is any different from atheists how?