Hm, yes, but, whence comes that tradition? The same source: the bible.
Nope.
As for reason and experience, your 'experience' with God can only be anecdotal,
Stories are at the heart of who we understand ourselves to be -- just like Heathenry.
and, as for reason, well...
Hey -- you have your gods; I have mine.
These are conclusions based on evidence.
Bad and biased "evidence" isn't evidence. It's just bias. And bad.
That you must see them as biased is your issue.
Pot...meet Kettle.
It is natural to be biased against tyranny and murder.
Case in point. Thank you.
So the Flood story isn't real?
You thought it
was???
Then why is any of the rest of it?
There's "One Fish, Two Fish" and "Chilton's Manual for the 1973 Pinto." One really doesn't serve to define the other, with regard to genre.
I understand that you are trying to say that this is some kind of moralistic discussion of the wrongs of society at the time and yadda yadda etc.. but that isn't how anyone actually takes this tale.
Oh? haven't spent much time around Biblical scholars, have you!
The tale does not present itself in that manner in any way.
Take a course and learn something new.
It presents itself as history.
You really need that course in basic Biblical literature.
And while we are all aware that the Hebrew testament was crafted to have layers, the Flood story is not taught as social metaphor.
Yes. It is.
the system I am speaking of, is God's entirety.
The universe is "God's entirety." So, you're saying that the entire universe is immoral? That would include yourself? And your gods?
But at this moment, we are discussing the immorality of God's wholesale mass murder of every living creature on the planet except for 'his favorites'.
Until you get past your penchant for hyperbole, I really can't help you here.
But I have not misrepresented the story,
...Thinking that its entire body was hidden, the ostrich continued to hide its head in the sand...
Who's my Buddy?
You're my Buddy!!!
I am simply pointing out the ugly details in that story, straight from it's own pages, and you simply can't stand being associated with such immorality, so you must impugn my character to cover your rightful shame.
If you remember, O Best Beloved, I
have acknowledged that the story is problematic to our modern sensibilities. However, our modern sensibilities have also imparted to us the knowledge that we see things differently than our forebears, so the story has to be interpreted in light of
our reality -- not
theirs. That's the point at which the story is told as social commentary. I understand that the story seems immoral from a certain point of view. I opine that we need to take a different POV, if the story is to remain useful. You're refusing to try a different POV, preferring, instead, to impugn an entire religion based upon a biased reading of an ancient (and pan-cultural) story.
I have not misrepresented a single thing; only exposed it's ugliness to the light.
If you want to spend time focusing on the leaky and musty basement of Notre Dame Cathedral, that's your business and your bane. The rest of us would rather let our imaginations soar with the spires and flying buttresses.
