Christianity

[Gary Childress]

Well, let's say we don't dispute Noah. I don't think you care about that anyway, so we can leave it aside for the moment.
The Bible is actually a library of 66 books. Only five of them are written by Moses, and in the first, we find the Noah account.

So let's say you reject Noah...and let's even say you reject Moses. How does that give you reason to also reject, "Love your neighbour as yourself," which was written by Matthew, some 1450 years later?

As a matter of fact, how does rejecting the Noah account amount to justification for even rejecting "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which was written also by Moses. For Jesus believed the same, as did all the NT writers. And even if we surmise that Moses was wrong about Noah, how would that conduce to the conclusion that he was also wrong about Creation?

I don't reject love thy neighbor.

But you should...if the fact of the Noah narrative is sufficient to make you doubt all 66 books in the Bible. That would, at least, be consistent.

Why should I reject "love thy neighbor"? Like I say there are good parts to the Bible.

[Immanuel Can]

How about "love your neighbour"? Whose "control" is benefitted by that one?

As I' stated it's a good concept.

You shouldn't think so. If a quibble about Noah is enough to get you to write off the whole Bible, then you should throw that one out, too.

But it's not. You know it's not. And yes, you're right...it's a very good concept indeed.

So now, what do you want to do with salvation? Reject it because of Noah, or give it serious consideration, as you do "love thy neighbour"?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't reject love thy neighbor.

But you should...if the fact of the Noah narrative is sufficient to make you doubt all 66 books in the Bible. That would, at least, be consistent.

Why should I reject "love thy neighbor"? Like I say there are good parts to the Bible.

You shouldn't, of course. But if Noah is a reasonable objection to the whole Bible, then you should.

But I know you don't, and won't. That just shows how vain the Noah objection was.

[Gary Childress]

How about "love your neighbour"? Whose "control" is benefitted by that one?

As I' stated it's a good concept.

You shouldn't think so. If a quibble about Noah is enough to get you to write off the whole Bible, then you should throw that one out, too.

But it's not. You know it's not. And yes, you're right...it's a very good concept indeed.

So now, what do you want to do with salvation? Reject it because of Noah, or give it serious consideration, as you do "love thy neighbour"?

I don't write off the whole Bible, I just don't think everything in it is the last word on things.

[Gary Childress]

But you should...if the fact of the Noah narrative is sufficient to make you doubt all 66 books in the Bible. That would, at least, be consistent.

Why should I reject "love thy neighbor"? Like I say there are good parts to the Bible.

You shouldn't, of course. But if Noah is a reasonable objection to the whole Bible, then you should.

But I know you don't, and won't. That just shows how vain the Noah objection was.

What is "vain" about my Noah objection? I mean, if it's true that the flood as portrayed in the Bible isn't literally accurate, then it's true that it isn't literally accurate. I find it very difficult to believe it as it is presented. Does that mean every single thing written in the Bible is discardable? Not necessarily.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't write off the whole Bible, I just don't think everything in it is the last word on things.

Okay, but then Noah's not a stopper for you. You should still be able to take seriously things that you are sure about, like "love thy neighbour."

And how about, John 3:16...do you take that part seriously?

[Immanuel Can]

... if it's true that the flood as portrayed in the Bible isn't literally accurate, then it's true that it isn't literally accurate.

You mean that Moses isn't being accurate in the Noah incident, or do you write off the whole Bible, all 35 authors and 66 books?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was invented by priests, to increase their "control"?
Just one question: how? How does it increase their "control"?

Is this getting any clearer?

No. You didn't even answer the question.

Again: how does "thou shalt not commit adultery" serve priestly "control"?

Indicate that you understand the larger point that I made and talk about that in some detail. Then I will answer your question.

[Immanuel Can]

Is this getting any clearer?

No. You didn't even answer the question.

Again: how does "thou shalt not commit adultery" serve priestly "control"?

Indicate that you understand the larger point that I made and talk about that in some detail. Then I will answer your question.

I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

No, thank you: I'll just take the answer to my question, if you have one.

[Gary Childress]

I don't write off the whole Bible, I just don't think everything in it is the last word on things.

Okay, but then Noah's not a stopper for you. You should still be able to take seriously things that you are sure about, like "love thy neighbour."

And how about, John 3:16...do you take that part seriously?

I don't know. Looking at the passage it doesn't look all that appealing to me. Looks more like an attempt to guilt trip a person into accepting Yahweh. I mean, love thy neighbor is a good passage, something I need to work on more. I'm not sure I believe the original sin thing. I mean if creation is fictional, then I would think original sin probably is too.

[Gary Childress]

... if it's true that the flood as portrayed in the Bible isn't literally accurate, then it's true that it isn't literally accurate.

You mean that Moses isn't being accurate in the Noah incident, or do you write off the whole Bible, all 35 authors and 66 books?

I think Moses probably picked up some local lore and wrote it down.

[Belinda]

I don't write off the whole Bible, I just don't think everything in it is the last word on things.

Okay, but then Noah's not a stopper for you. You should still be able to take seriously things that you are sure about, like "love thy neighbour."

And how about, John 3:16...do you take that part seriously?

I don't know. Looking at the passage it doesn't look all that appealing to me. Looks more like an attempt to guilt trip a person into accepting Yahweh. I mean, love thy neighbor is a good passage, something I need to work on more. I'm not sure I believe the original sin thing. I mean if creation is fictional, then I would think original sin is too.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It induces guilt if 'love' implies reciprocity. It does not induce guilt if 'love' implies the nature of the giver and nothing but the nature of the giver such that Providence could not do other than give his one and only son.
A minor point regarding "believes in" is that John probably intended what in modern language would be like 'trust in' or 'have faith in'.

A further point is that John is messianic and not a Jew. A liberal Jew may regard Jesus as an important man of goodness and wisdom but would not credit Jesus as coterminous with God.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't write off the whole Bible, I just don't think everything in it is the last word on things.

Okay, but then Noah's not a stopper for you. You should still be able to take seriously things that you are sure about, like "love thy neighbour."

And how about, John 3:16...do you take that part seriously?

I don't know. Looking at the passage it doesn't look all that appealing to me. Looks more like an attempt to guilt trip a person into accepting Yahweh.

I don't get your response, Gary...did you read the verse? It says,

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life."

You see "guilt" in that? I see no indictment at all. It looks to me like a free promise that God loves us, and offers us eternal life, if we only trust Him to do it. I don't think it even mentions sin, judgment, condemnation, or any other things ordinarily associated with "guilt." At most, you might say it's a prerequisite implied by the possibility of "perishing", but it's certainly not in the verse.

I mean, love thy neighbor is a good passage, something I need to work on more.

We all do. The problem is, it's not easy to creatures with a nature like ours, which (let's face it) is instinctively self-centered. To love ANYBODY as much as one loves oneself is hard for us.

And that's the issue: that we find it so hard to do what's right. We might well ask, what's wrong with us, that we are like that? We know what we ought to do, and find it almost impossible to do. Could it be that we are not the wonderful, pure, well-intentioned creatures we would like to believe ourselves to be? Could it be we are actually sinful, instead, and maybe "perishing" in our own natures?

I'm not sure I believe the original sin thing.

It would depend on what one understands by the phrase. Biblically, it just means that you have an inclination not to "love your neighbour" or do other such good things, and it's deep in one's very constitution. I don't think you and I are actually in doubt about that one. As you say, it's something we "need to work on more," but don't ever seem to do for very long.

I mean if creation is fictional, then I would think original sin probably is too.

You'd actually have to think ALL sin was "fictional," in that case. For if we are the accidental products of a merely-material universe, then such entities have no "sin." Whatever they do, whether we like or approve of it or not, is just what they do. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just how things are. Human nature is what it is, and no action is objectively good or evil, regardless of our feelings. It's just an action. And that's the end of it, then.

[Immanuel Can]

... if it's true that the flood as portrayed in the Bible isn't literally accurate, then it's true that it isn't literally accurate.

You mean that Moses isn't being accurate in the Noah incident, or do you write off the whole Bible, all 35 authors and 66 books?

I think Moses probably picked up some local lore and wrote it down.

Fine if you think so. As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you. At least, I don't think it ought to.

Does it discredit the rest of the Bible? It would be hard to see why we should imagine it did. In fact, if Moses were to have misspoken on one occasion, does that remotely imply he could not speak truth on another? Again, it's impossible to see that as reasonable.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary wrote: I think Moses probably picked up some local lore and wrote it down.

Fine if you think so. As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you. At least, I don't think it ought to.

Does it discredit the rest of the Bible? It would be hard to see why we should imagine it did. In fact, if Moses were to have misspoken on one occasion, does that remotely imply he could not speak truth on another? Again, it's impossible to see that as reasonable.

But again Immanuel's only effort here, his entire purpose, is missionary and apologetic. His objective is to convert someone/anyone and, within that project, any specific element in the Bible has no relevance.

When one begins to read those who examine the biblical narrative (starting in the OT) with a critical and analytical eye the Bible stories open up in remarkable ways. Certainly the Hebrews in Egypt borrowed a great deal from existing lore. Of that (among scholars who are not religious activists I should say) this has been made clear. So it is not so much a question of what a person chooses to think and belief, but rather what is true and real.

As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you.

This phrasing is weird. It does not matter what this means or doesn't mean to Gary, what matters is the truth. It matters that the early Hebrews incorporated stories, myths and tales from other peoples and, often, altered them and retold them with different inflections. It certainly could determine a great deal in relation to the issue of 'faith' to arrive at the understanding that faith is quite independent of the veracity of a religious or mythological story. Faith is one sense does not require a sound story or a sound mythology. It is really another animal.

So it could happen that Gary or someone like him, even after reasonably arguing against the veracity of some specific story-element could still (irrationally, and faithfully) take the leap and *believe*. Thus 'belief' is really an internal affair, an event that occurs within the psyche and psychology of a given person.

There are some people -- take Atto as an example -- who have almost no grounding in the Bible or a foundation in orthodox Christianity who yet who have an active faith. One of the things that is interesting about Immanuel is simply that he comes from an extremely defined and doctrinaire Evangelical position. But many people do not come close to such rigid definitions and indeed their *faith* is not so much grounded in the Bible document as in something far more vague.

Does it discredit the rest of the Bible?

Does the loss of the possibility of belief in some element of the Bible stories undermine the wisdom of Jewish ethics? Let's look at a few Proverbs:

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.

Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife.

Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone.

Do any of these observations about life lose their validity is some storified aspect of the Biblical narratives are understood to be stories and as such 'false'? The answer is no.

The Bible is a compendium of all manner of different stories, wisdom sayings, borrowings, reinterpretations, and much more. It is impossible to say it is one specific thing.

Along these lines it is interesting to note that the God the Father, Mary the mother, Jesus the son, and Satan as opponent narrative can be seen as unoriginal. That is, it is a sort of retelling of other stories, other mythologies. Notably that of Osiris/Isis and Horus/Seth. These are mythological stories that go way back in time.

It is quite possible, as some who take this approach assert, that the Story has a powerful resonance in people because they are responding to something -- what is the word? -- telluric within their own selves.

Yet we must note that Immanuel takes these biblical stories in quite a different way. It is peculiar though because I'd assert that his faith-position does not depend really on the veracity of any story-element. It is more like a choice he made lo the many years. Among other believers I assume he'd talk of the Bible stories as if they were real. But here he is forced to wiggle away from such open declarative statements. But he is still angling for the conversion he hopes for!

In fact, if Moses were to have misspoken on one occasion, does that remotely imply he could not speak truth on another?

You'd need to rewrite this sentence. It is not Moses who spoke or misspoke, it is the authors who wrote his part. The character *Moses* does not speak truth at any point since he is, and must be seen as, a literary and theological creation.

True, to see in this way *deflates* the declarative intention of the narrative itself by describing it as a concoction. But in this we have no choice. So then, what is *true* and what is *not true* has to be examined and decided from very different positions.

Again, it's impossible to see that as reasonable.

LOL!

(I think this is the first time in my forum writing career that I have used the LOL. I am unsure if I should be congratulated or condemned).

Immanuel Can you are not 'reasonable' and you do not deal in real reason, you are a religious fanatic and your positions are unreasonable and faith-based. You really need to get clear about this! And I am here to help.

Reason (analytical reasoning, forensic processes) penetrate and disrupt the purposed continuity of the biblical narratives. This is just a fact. It is not really even disputed.

A faith-position or a faithful conversion do not require narrative veracity since the conversion process is irrationality itself!