The Real Meaning of God's Covenant with Noah

@livinglava,

So, how's your ark coming along?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Myths , mot often are jut so stories "made up". I gree that the entire Biblical base is probably a mythological (made up) story of the Abrahamic tradition.

Look, I keep trying to explain to you in general how literature/mythology works. Let's take the story of the boy who cried wolf: there may never have been and actual boy who cried wolf, yet the story still is valid in a general sense. Focusing on whether or not there was an actual historical event that corresponds with the boy who cried wolf is irrelevant to whether the point of the story is true or false.

Quote:

The precise word you want me to buy is that its ALLEGORICAL. I dont believe that you are pushing that either because an allegory is like SCylla and Charybdis. (There is an area where ocean currents make the rocky coast a problem to ancient shipping.)the legend is based somewhat on fact. Id like to accept that most of the Bible Followers would accept the allegorical nature of the stories of genesis.
Ryan and Pittman were 2 geophysicists who discovered old villages underwater at coastal Caspian Sea and drew some parallels that ere within the Gilgamesh legend and, by extension, were tricked out even more for Genesis and then the Quran.

The point is the meaning of the text and how it helps us make sense of situations we need to make sense of, such as the contemporary relationship between human sin and climate change.

Quote:

You seem to trying awfully hard to straddle a middle path so Im just being quietly amused. When people get pissed at me they always try the insolence of "youre just a loow life dummy and Im waay smarter than you, so Ill explain thi really slowly so even you get it" (I call it the oralloy argument, so Im used to listening to your processes rather than facts and evidence).

What 'middle path' am I 'straddling?'

Quote:

Look, you dont have to respond to anything I say. Im just commenting on the process also. I just dont buy your argument at all, and Im sharing some reasons why not.

You're not even speaking to the topic of the thread. You are talking about some aspect of religion that is outside the thread topic.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

So, how's your ark coming along?

Are you asking what kind of an ark would we build to ride out the 'flood' of climate change?

I guess that depends on whether climate change will culminate in some kind of short-term destruction event that allows humans to restore natural climate in its aftermath.

What I'm thinking now is that the rapture could be a multgenerational climate change event, even multi-millennial; and somehow we will be saved from it; but of course that will happen beyond our lifetimes if it does at all. Still, it is interesting to think about if and how it will.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

I get it.

Quote:

Look, I keep trying to explain to you in general how literature/mythology works. Let's take the story of the boy who cried wolf: there may never have been and actual boy who cried wolf, yet the story still is valid in a general sense.

So the fact there was no flood, no Noah and no god doesn't mean that the story isn't useful.

Quote:

Focusing on whether or not there was an actual historical event that corresponds with the boy who cried wolf is irrelevant to whether the point of the story is true or false.

Focusing on the falsehood of the super being in the story book misses the point that we can still learn someone from it.

Climate change scientists should read this inspirational work of fiction.

1 Reply

@ekename,

ekename wrote:

So the fact there was no flood, no Noah and no god doesn't mean that the story isn't useful.

There is no factuality in denying either the flood, Noah, or God.

What I am saying is that there is no benefit in questioning the factuality of the story, because that is not the basis for its validity/veracity.

Quote:

Focusing on the falsehood of the super being in the story book misses the point that we can still learn someone from it.

That's correct, but there is no falsehood in God, only in your assumptions about the meaning and nature of existence that limits your understanding of how God can in fact exist.

Quote:

Climate change scientists should read this inspirational work of fiction.

It is not a work of fiction but rather a work of theology. You, like many people, are obsessed with distinguishing fact from fiction; but that undermines theology's ability to fully exercise the power of Truth, which it should.

The story of the boy who cried wolf isn't fiction, for example, because it is a general description of what happens when you lie repeatedly, and that makes it a true story at a general level.

Fiction would be if the boy who cried wolf ended up telling the truth about the real wolf and everyone believed him nevermind all the times he lied about fake wolves.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You, like many people, are obsessed with distinguishing fact from fiction;

I'm not the one obsessively creating threads seeking to present fiction as fact and displaying an incapability of distinguishing fact from fiction.

1 Reply

@ekename,

ekename wrote:

I'm not the one obsessively creating threads seeking to present fiction as fact and displaying an incapability of distinguishing fact from fiction.

Did you understand the example of the boy who cried wolf?

Don't you see how irrelevent it is to ask whether that story is 'fact or fiction?'

The truth of the story lies in the message it conveys. It doesn't matter whether the story is completely made up or whether there was an actual boy who cried wolf.

Why do anti-theists always have to derail theological discussions by arguing about fact vs. fiction when it's just not a relevant distinction in a theological context?

0 Replies

The Real Meaning of God's Covenant with Noah

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know