Is Bible literal young earth Christian fundamentalism turning people away from God?

[jonathan180iq]

Why do so many atheists have this beef with God as an 'authority figure'? It's a complete misunderstanding of something they're not supposed to be interested in anyway. God may be real. You may be wrong ...

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Don't expect God to dance for you because you instruct him to prove himself

I have no expectations of nonexistent things.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Seen through 21st century eyes, the non- factual nature genesis is more than a little apparent.

Is it not so, though, that it is a relatively recent thing,
to see it so?

How would one determine that the authors did not
intend it all as historical fact?

Genesis was most likely written by multiple authors during the Babylonian exile period. The authors are unknown. Most cultures have creation myths. The Genesis story is either through inspiration, copied from another source of both. Clearly the author could not have witnessed first hand the events He wrote of.

 

[Audie]

Apparently, yes.

I have spoken online to muricans who refer to Trump as the God Emperor.

Which is obviously, somewhat insane.

It is if the mean it as sent of god, that is nuts.
For sure, many think that the US constitution was
inspired by "god".

FWIW, living here in the USA, the place doesnot
seem crazy. I've been in many countries, and lived
half my life outside the USA, so I am not without
perspective!

Life here is really quite banal, and the news stories
that are seen overseas seem to give odd impressions.

 

[Mox]

Life here is really quite banal, and the news stories
that are seen overseas seem to give odd impressions.

I know that. I don't believe the hype because I have american family members, they give me a better picture of what's going on.
However there are always nutters (mad people). Always. Sadly one of them has managed to get into the whitehouse.

 

[ERLOS]

Did you actually read what I wrote?


I have no expectations of nonexistent things.

But then why are you reading and commenting on those things you don't believe exist? If you had to put an 'a' in front of everything you don't believe in you'd have more titles than the Emperor Napoleon?

How can you pfshh away someone's experience of the divine with some silly semi-psychology quotation?

 

[Audie]

Genesis was most likely written by multiple authors during the Babylonian exile period. The authors are unknown. Most cultures have creation myths. The Genesis story is either through inspiration, copied from another source of both. Clearly the author could not have witnessed first hand the events He wrote of.

All obvious, or otherwise known to me, but the
"inspiration" part, not so much.

It is a curious thing how people make up stories
that are later taken as real history.

And is it not so that genesis-as-history was it,
until rather recently?

Youi'd not want to tell some native american that
his creation myth of great raven or whatever was
not really and exactly what happened.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But then why are you reading and commenting on those things. If you had to put an 'a' in front of everything you don't believe in you'd have more names than the Emperor Napoleon?

You asked a question in an open forum that I am both educated in and happen to have an opinion about.

Would you care to actually discuss the topic of your thread, or do you prefer detraction?

 

[Audie]

I know that. I don't believe the hype because I have american family members, they give me a better picture of what's going on.
However there are always nutters (mad people). Always. Sadly one of them has managed to get into the whitehouse.

Trump is not a nutter. I think he is shallow as can
be, and various other attributes that seem highly
unsuitable for where he is now.

The left /right divide in America is also kind of an
elite coastal fringe of rich left extremists v
the redneck bible thumpin' shootin' nascar flag wavin; and beer people of flyover country.

As poorly as Trump may represent the flyover
people, he sure did it better than Hillary did,
calling them deplorable.

Which of those two (deplorable) people would
do more harm? We wont get to find out.

 

[Audie]

You asked a question in an open forum that I am both educated in and happen to have an opinion about.

Would you care to actually discuss the topic of your thread, or do you prefer detraction?

The answer to that is more than a little apparent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As poorly as Trump may represent the flyover
people, he sure did it better than Hillary did,
calling them deplorable.

By being a serial, persistent, and transparent liar on the cutting edge of nativism, misogyny, and pathological narcissism?

 

[Mox]

Trump is not a nutter. I think he is shallow as can
be, and various other attributes that seem highly
unsuitable for where he is now.

He is though, he is a narcissist who thrives on flattery and sychophancy, he fires all who disagree with him or gives them no choice but resign from their positions, I count nearly thirty individuals so far, from people at the very top, like Michael Flynn (The National Security Adviser) and James Comey (Director of the FBI) to many other executive and government staff less well known, including but not limited to.

• Rick Dearborn: deputy chief of staff
• George Sifakis: director, Office of Public Liaison
• Ezra Cohen-Watnick: senior director for intelligence programs, National Security Council
• Michael Short: senior press assistant
• Walter Shaub: director, Office of Government Ethics
• Vivek Murthy: surgeon general
• Angella Reid: chief usher, White House
• Katie Walsh: deputy chief of staff
• Preet Bharara: U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York

His personality disorder(s) might not qualify him as medically insane. Still. The man is unhinged.

 

[Windwalker]

It is a curious thing how people make up stories
that are later taken as real history.

I am wanting to share some thoughts on this, but realize how complex the response could be. I think when the authors of the creation myth wrote the stories down, in their minds at the time they probably did see them as what really happened. But, a big however, it would not have been something akin to how modern man would think about recorded history.

The stories of reality we tell ourselves, become reality for us. Stories, our cultural myths, become 'facts' of who were are as a people. In the minds of those who simply hear the stories, they are taken as 'the way things are'. They aren't questioned. They aren't examined from a critical perspective, such as a scientist or a modern historian would critique the inherited stories for veracity.

So in their minds, they really believed there was a Moses, a Noah and his ark, an Adam and an Eve, etc. But, the reason the stories were adopted and shared and spread, is not because the people were actually interested in getting to the 'facts' of history. That notion of 'determining the facts in order to have a basis for meaning' is a very modern mindset, and in reality people today who are themselves pre-modern in their thinking, aren't looking for the truth of them in the 'facts' either. They don't care about the facts. Fact confuse them. They care about something else.

The stories endured because of the themes they touch upon. And that is why we can look and understand they are allegorical, which they are. Think of it like popular music. Popular music is popular because it's easily accessible. Everyone tap their foot to it, sing the familiar chorus line, share it with friends, uses it to fit meanings in their lives here and there. As an expression of musical depth, they are not! But most people don't like challenging music. The myths of the Bible are like pop music. It doesn't matter if the "stars" singing them are actually any good as real musicians. But they endure because they speak to them.

So it is with our mythologies. To critically examine them, to show how canned the music is, to show how the structure of the song is anything but deep, threatens the enjoyment of them for the "believers" in them. "What do you mean this isn't music! What do you mean the myths aren't history! They speak to me!"

Does this make sense how I'm struggling to put this?

 

[blü 2]

But we have to ask first.

I can make no sense of that unless you mean it's a transaction: God loves you if and only if you surrender your critical judgment to [him], and if you don't accept the deal, you can never experience the love of God or the rather unspecific / unfalsifiable benefits that, it's implied, come with it.

What have I missed?

 

[ERLOS]

You asked a question in an open forum that I am both educated in and happen to have an opinion about.

Would you care to actually discuss the topic of your thread, or do you prefer detraction?

↑Me:
I believe that when you're down on your knees and you finally cry out: God help me, that God will respond to that first step of yours by taking the other nine steps towards you. Then and only then will you know God is really there. As a reality. And the rest of your existence will be absorbing the complete understanding that faith is safely letting God take over completely. Imo

You:

If I told you that feeling bad about yourself and submitting to the authority of Science was the only way to truly understand Science, would that do anything for you?

"Once you convince yourself, the Universe falls into place"

But perhaps I misunderstood?

 

[ERLOS]

I can make no sense of that unless you mean it's a transaction: God loves you if and only if you surrender your critical judgment to [him], and if you don't accept the deal, you can never experience the love of God or the rather unspecific / unfalsifiable benefits that, it's implied, come with it.

What have I missed?

You've missed that you have free will and God can't make you do anything. If the purpose of existence is not purely material, if there is continued existence after death, if these are the really important considerations, they are obscured by mammon/illusion/desire etc.

Why?
Who knows.

I repeat: you can't whistle and expect God to dance. Whatever ...

 

[Audie]

He is though, he is a narcissist who thrives on flattery and sychophancy, he fires all who disagree with him or gives them no choice but resign from their positions, I count nearly thirty individuals so far, from people at the very top, like Michael Flynn (The National Security Adviser) and James Comey (Director of the FBI) to many other executive and government staff less well known, including but not limited to.

• Rick Dearborn: deputy chief of staff
• George Sifakis: director, Office of Public Liaison
• Ezra Cohen-Watnick: senior director for intelligence programs, National Security Council
• Michael Short: senior press assistant
• Walter Shaub: director, Office of Government Ethics
• Vivek Murthy: surgeon general
• Angella Reid: chief usher, White House
• Katie Walsh: deputy chief of staff
• Preet Bharara: U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York

His personality disorder(s) might not qualify him as medically insane. Still. The man is unhinged.

Whatevs, diagnosis wise.

Hope we survive more or less intact.

 

[Audie]

I am wanting to share some thoughts on this, but realize how complex the response could be. I think when the authors of the creation myth wrote the stories down, in their minds at the time they probably did see them as what really happened. But, a big however, it would not have been something akin to how modern man would think about recorded history.

The stories of reality we tell ourselves, become reality for us. Stories, our cultural myths, become 'facts' of who were are as a people. In the minds of those who simply hear the stories, they are taken as 'the way things are'. They aren't questioned. They aren't examined from a critical perspective, such as a scientist or a modern historian would critique the inherited stories for veracity.

So in their minds, they really believed there was a Moses, a Noah and his ark, an Adam and an Eve, etc. But, the reason the stories were adopted and shared and spread, is not because the people were actually interested in getting to the 'facts' of history.

That notion of 'determining the facts in order to have a basis for meaning' is a very modern mindset, and in reality people today who are themselves pre-modern in their thinking, aren't looking for the truth of them in the 'facts' either. They don't care about the facts. Fact confuse them. They care about something else.

The stories endured because of the themes they touch upon. And that is why we can look and understand they are allegorical, which they are. Think of it like popular music. Popular music is popular because it's easily acceptable. Everyone tap their foot to it, sing the familiar chorus line, share it with friends, uses it to fit meanings in their lives here and there.

As an expression of musical depth, they are not! But most people don't like challenging music. The myths of the Bible are like pop music. It doesn't matter if the "stars" singing them are actually any good as real musicians. But they endure because they speak to them.

So it is with our mythologies. To critical examine them, to show how canned the music is, threatens the enjoyment of them for the "believers" in them. "What do you mean this isn't music! What do you mean the myths aren't history! They speak to me!"

Does this make sense how I'm struggling to put this?

It does, and my own thoughts are similar enough.

An acquaintance who lived in Alaska for many years
told me a story-

A whole native village-not so many people-decidedto
move to another place.

Near there, were two small hills.

A child asked, mommy, how did those
hills get there?

Now, this is a culture with various monsters,
little people, etc.

The mother told her, "A giant was carrying
a big rock. When he dropped it, it broke,
see, the little hill would fit on top of the
bigger one, see how it is flat on top."

Now everyone there "knows" how those
hills got there.

My acquaintance's informer said it was her
own grandmother who thought of the story,
not, of course, knowing that it would become
a legend.

 

[jonathan180iq]

↑Me:
I believe that when you're down on your knees and you finally cry out: God help me, that God will respond to that first step of yours by taking the other nine steps towards you. Then and only then will you know God is really there. As a reality. And the rest of your existence will be absorbing the complete understanding that faith is safely letting God take over completely. Imo

You:

If I told you that feeling bad about yourself and submitting to the authority of Science was the only way to truly understand Science, would that do anything for you?

"Once you convince yourself, the Universe falls into place"

But perhaps I misunderstood?

Yes. The focus isn't on some spooky idea about the authority of God but rather on how one comes to a conclusion in the first place...

My question isn't facetious. If you I told you that the only way you could truly understand something was to first admit that it exists, and then understand it is preeminent and capable of "appearing" to you, and then told you that once you bought into all those things that the thing itself would better present itself to you, would that actually help persuade you to follow it?

Would that work if I was talking about an Old Earth?
Or Zeus?
Or Men From Jupiter?
Or Purple Flying Manatees?

Like YEC ideas, your assertion that someone has to cry out to God for help before God will take 9 steps in their direction may make sense to you as someone who is already convinced of your position. But it's bonkers to people who aren't. It's bad rationalization.

Like my quote, "Once you convince yourself, the Universe falls into place...", you're saying that once I accept something as true, then it appears true. Well... yeah...obviously... But that doesn't make it so.

I'm sure there are other faiths or ideas that you find unacceptable and unbelievable, right? You have to recognize that your theological position is in that same category for other people are well. The only measure of how true or accurate something is comes from the substantiating and supporting data that goes along with it. God, for example, is a personalized mystical experience, as you've already said. YEC, on the other hand, is a completely bogus scientific claim that has nothing supporting it other than misguided theology. They're two very separate things.

I don't believe in one. I wholly reject the other.

 

[blü 2]

You've missed that you have free will and God can't make you do anything.

If God is omniscient then that can't be right. Instead [he] knew everything I was ever going to think, say and do before [he] made the universe. And if [he]'s not omniscient then [he]'s not omnipotent, since an omnipotent being lacking omniscience can become omniscient with a snap of the omnipotent fingers, yes?

If the purpose of existence is not purely material, if there is continued existence after death, if these are the really important considerations, they are obscured by mammon/illusion/desire etc.

I'm a materialist, but only after a long hard look at the alternatives. All believers seem to know something I don't, not least what a real god, one with objective existence, one not imaginary, is ─ though it's not very reassuring that they can't agree on that among themselves.

you can't whistle and expect God to dance.

You can't claim God exists outside of imagination in the face of the fact that [he]'s never found anywhere else, can you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are these people actually seriously damaging the work of Christ and turning people away from God?

I believe that when you're down on your knees and you finally cry out: God help me, that God will respond to that first step of yours by taking the other nine steps towards you. Then and only then will you know God is really there. As a reality. And the rest of your existence will be absorbing the complete understanding that faith is safely letting God take over completely. Imo

In any faith or place or time.

But we have to ask first.

Which God should we ask? Did you read about God in some book?

How do we know we can "get on our knees to pray for help"? Who told you "we pray on our knees"? Did you read about this in a book or books? Are these books reliable, trustworthy, or not trustworthy?

If God was willing to write a book, would He lie to us inside? Would He get his basic ideas and facts wrong?

Does God want to really have a relationship with everyone, even people who despise Him and want to be their own gods? Is there a reason God hides from us?

Does God ever disagree with the common views of the common man? Are scientists exalted or are they common men and women, too? Do scientists know everything? Do they have any cognitive biases?