The Bible - Why Trust It

[shunyadragon]

You refer to many things as myth, but on what basis?
So, may I ask, what is it that you know, which others don't, so that you know it is a myth?
You don't know, do you? In fact, the very things you refer to as myth, may very well be true. There is no valid reason to rule them out as myth.

Take for example, the crucifixion of Christ.
We know that this is what the Romans did - crucify criminals. We know how exactly they do it, and it is assumed why.
This method of execution was recorded, in the Bible, in the case of the Messiah.
You call it a myth, yet historians refer to it as fact. Not just any historian, but one who lived close to Jesus' lifetime, and a Roman, to besides.

So basically, you argue simply based on personal opinion, rather than any confirmed supportive facts.
Anyone can do that... but what sense does it make, going back and forth, with my opinion, your opinion ?

Would you for example, go back and forth with this guy.

I think he would probably ask the same question I asked.
By any chance, are your opinions based on lack of archaeological evidence? Is that it - the "absence of evidence argument"?
Then see post #1.

You are aware that some scholars thought the Kingdom of Judah was a myth. What do they think now?
Baseless opinions move nothing. Contrarily, baseless opinions are moved. They fizz away... like Poof!

If you like, we can discuss how you know these accounts are myths.

Your are taking Einstein selectively out of context. You have been called on this before for misrepresenting citations to justify your agenda. Einstein did not believe in God. He considered himself an agnostic and non-believer. His admiration was for a humanist Jesus. He had a world view like Thomas Jefferson.

From: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[13] In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[14] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[15]

Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[16] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[17][18][19] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[20]

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[21]

In his book Ideas and Opinions (1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."[3] In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.[9]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[13] In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[14] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[15]

Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[16] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[17][18][19] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[20]

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[21]

In his book Ideas and Opinions (1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."[3] In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.[9]"

 

[Goodman John]

I understand your viewpoint, you certainly aren’t the only person that feels this way.

But what many call “making excuses”, when the context of these divine incidents is understood, the excuses are really reasons, as to why Jehovah God acted the way He did.

Pick an incident, from the Flood to the 10 plaques to whatever....let’s discuss one.

Okay, let's look at the Flood.

Man is all wicked- wickedness everywhere you look. Except for Noah- a WINE MAKER- who is, with his family, allegedly the only decent man around. So- the highly improbable story of the Ark notwithstanding- God decides, in his infinite Love and Mercy, to kill everything on the face of the earth with a mighty flood saving only a pair of each animal and Noah's family.

But why drown everyone? Was it to 'teach those wicked men a lesson'? Well, fine- they're dead- so the lesson is completely irrelevant. Besides the method of execution, why kill them at all? Why not demonstrate this Love and Mercy by sending a Messenger- a Prophet- to work on these people and get them thinking the way you want them to? For that matter why not just ZAP them into 'correct thinking'? This sounds like a perfect opportunity for Christ to have made an appearance to sort everyone out- but he did neither.

So how do you justify killing potentially millions of people as being Loving and Kind when there were many other methods available to turn them around for the better? When your dog acts up, you don't take him out back and drown him- you train him the way you want him to act. Why would God think less of Man than we think of dogs?

But when looked at reversed- with Satan doing these things instead of God- it makes perfect sense; he's doing the vicious, spiteful things Satan is known for.

 

[Goodman John]

Thought I’d like to comment on this....

You know, you’re right, regarding the world! Now, this planet is Jehovah God’s creation, but this world is another matter. (1 John 5:19) Too many people are disregarding the Bible’s counsel on caring for each other, putting other’s interest ahead of their own. (Colossians 3:13-14; Philippians 2:3) I’m sure you would agree, if people lived by these principles, life would be much better!

Just because many don’t want to, doesn’t detract from the Scriptures...in fact, the results we see from so many straying from the Scriptures, actually helps to support the Bible as being divine; it stands to reason that the One claiming to be our Creator, would know the best way for us to act. Following His guidance, as found in Colossians, Philippians, etc., helps to build strong relationships w/ others, and good relationships are essential for human happiness.

If you don’t mind, let’s discuss (in context) one of the incidents where many think God was evil.

I don't think this world- the physical universe- is God's creation at all. I believe it's all Satan's work, created as a (temporary) escape following a war he waged on God in the spiritual realm and was defeated. He took on God wanting to be King, but God wasn't having it, so in Satan's fall he created the physical realm- our universe- as a place where he could be King. Enter the Earth to be Satan's kingdom and Man, eventually, to be his servant.

So now we get to the account of the Old Testament, with this really Bad Guy visiting all sorts of horrors on Man- and all the while claiming to be "God". Why? So that when the REAL God shows up and starts in on how bad Satan is, Man is like- what? YOU did all this bad stuff back in the day! WTF? And all sort of confusion is sown- and all according to Satan's scheme to stay in power here as long as he can. For as long as he does keep this physical realm going he's safe from God- when it all comes crashing down (SPOILER ALERT: it does) he's got to deal with another beat-down from God for being such a nuisance.

Mind, I don't think it's GOD being evil at all- quite the contrary, I believe it's Satan doing all these awful things while masquerading AS God (it's not until the NT that we see the nature of the True God being revealed). And again, when looked at from that perspective, it all makes perfect sense- much more so than trying to explain why a Loving and Merciful God is drowning everyone and ordering up genocides and nuking cities from orbit.

 

[nPeace]

Off course, I am not.
As explained, that's what defines religions as being religions.

It's what the qualifier "religious" in "religious belief" literally is all about.



It is clearly evident to me that I actually understand it just fine.
It is also evident to me that you argue against this because of your psychological defenses since acknowledging it would result in having to admit that you happily clinge to irrational beliefs.



No expertise required to understand what the qualifier "religious" means in the wording "religious beliefs".

Yup. You are wrong. Faith is not religion, and religion is not faith. So first, I think you need to make up your mind what you are talking about, and second, be clear that you do understand it. Clearly you don't, because you have done neither.

Neither of these are relevant to the point being made.
That point being, in your position, I really wouldn't try and quote Einstein as if it makes your religious beliefs credible because no matter what his opinion on Jesus were, he calls your religious belief CHILDISCH, a collection of SUPERSITIOUSNESS and a product of human weakness.

He's really the last person you should be quoting in an attempt to make your religious beliefs sound semi-rational.



Your point was about @Subduction Zone referring to many of your religious beliefs as being "myths". And you quoted Einstein in that context.

But Einstein equally considers your religious beliefs as "myth". Worse even, he calls it childish, superstitious and a product of human weakness.

Again, it is clear you missed my point, and as usual don't care, because <you are always right>.

 

[nPeace]

But do you not see that this is a perfect lead-in to describing an abusive parent or spouse?

"I'm beating you, but it's only because I love you"
"I have to punish you- it's for your own good"
"Who's your daddy? That's right *whack* it's ME"

And the defense of this behavior is straight out of Battered Spouse 101

"He only acts that way because he loves me"

You see what I mean? In order to justify "God's" actions in the OT one MUST adopt the mindset of a battered spouse or child in order to process it. On the other hand, if one see the OT "God" as not being God at all- but Satan- then it makes perfect sense and there's no need to jump through hoops to justify his behavior. You don't call a shovel a hammer because you want it to be a hammer- you call a shovel a shovel and drive on.

But then there's the contention that 'God lost patience' with Man and lashed out at him. All well and good, but if this is the case it belies the claim of God's 'infinite mercy and love' and all that. God's got all the time in the world for Man to come about to Proper Behavior- so why get all upset and impatient to the point where you nuke and drown everyone? You're GOD, ffs- why get upset and impatient AT ALL?

Hard for me to understand how you got those pictures in your mind.
Can you explain how you connected wife beating, and child abuse with anything God does, or did?

When the law puts a sadistic murderer to death, most people say justice has been served. Some even say, he showed no mercy when he tortured the child / or other, and did unimaginable things to the victim, therefore show him no mercy.

God caries out justice in behalf of the innocent (innocent from the stand point of not guilty of deliberate sin).
God also gives people chances (many) to repent, and change. When they do, he forgives - the Bible says, and shows, he does so, in a large way... abundantly.
God also acts as a protector, in behalf of the vulnerable.

How are these acts of God wrong, or compared to the examples you used?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your viewpoint, you certainly aren’t the only person that feels this way.

But what many call “making excuses”, when the context of these divine incidents is understood, the excuses are really reasons, as to why Jehovah God acted the way He did.

Pick an incident, from the Flood to the 10 plaques to whatever....let’s discuss one.

How about the Flood and why we know that it did not happen?

First a qualifying question, does your God lie?

 

[nPeace]

. . . because we lack provenance of authorship or original authorship for most, lacks early documentation before 100 AD except maybe a few letters by Paul. Genesis and the Rest of the Pentateuch is compiled, edited and redacted from various sources very late and contains a great deal of Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugarit and Canaanite mythology.

This is your opinion.
I don't hold to that opinion, and a study of the Bible shows differently.
There are many valid reasons for ruling out myths in the Bible.
Also, there is evidence outside the Bible which does show we can accept it as historically accurate.
It does not require any more faith to hold this view, than it does to hold to your opinion.

I think one who makes the claim that the Bible is full of myths, require faith - faith in the scholars that support what they want to hear, and prefer, and faith that their belief is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your opinion.
I don't hold to that opinion, and a study of the Bible shows differently.
There are many valid reasons for ruling out myths in the Bible.
Also, there is evidence outside the Bible which does show we can accept it as historically accurate.
It does not require any more faith to hold this view, than it does to hold to your opinion.

I think one who makes the claim that the Bible is full of myths, require faith - faith in the scholars that support what they want to hear, and prefer, and faith that their belief is correct.

Once again, claims that can be supported by the works of actual scholars, those that study a subject without presuppositions, support his claim. So called "Bible scholars" are all too often believers trying to make the facts fit the Bible instead of finding out what the evidence actually says. You appear to have just "opinions" and you constantly accuse others of the same.

 

[Goodman John]

Hard for me to understand how you got those pictures in your mind.
Can you explain how you connected wife beating, and child abuse with anything God does, or did?

When the law puts a sadistic murderer to death, most people say justice has been served. Some even say, he showed no mercy when he tortured the child / or other, and did unimaginable things to the victim, therefore show him no mercy.

God caries out justice in behalf of the innocent (innocent from the stand point of not guilty of deliberate sin).
God also gives people chances (many) to repent, and change. When they do, he forgives - the Bible says, and shows, he does so, in a large way... abundantly.
God also acts as a protector, in behalf of the vulnerable.

How are these acts of God wrong, or compared to the examples you used?

The situation is the same, if you see God as visiting these horrors on people 'because he loves them'. Ask a battered housewife or kid and add up how many times they tell you 'yeah it's bad but he loves me'. If you tolerate a god who does all these thing- and even promise your soul to him!- you're acting just like that abused spouse or child, and that god is acting just like an abuser.

As for God carrying out justice, and giving people the chance to repent, and protects the vulnerable- just what 'justice' was God carrying out in the Flood? Did God send a Prophet or Messenger before the flood to even try and get the people of the world to straighten up and fly right? Who did God protect during the Flood- the innocent children who might have had less-than-stellar parents?

Wouldn't it have been a better display of justice to simply 'strike down' all the truly wicked people and leave those who were not wicked or were otherwise completely innocent (ie babies and children)? Would that not have served as a lesson to the ones who were left to keep to the straight and narrow path instead of turning to the Dark Side?

Now, as I have taken pains to explain, I don't think this is God at all doing these things recounted in the OT- I think it's Satan at the wheel, from first to last.

But if you insist on God being the perpetrator of these awful deeds, though, that's perfectly fine- I must have a higher opinion of God than you to think he would sully his hands with such sordid acts.

 

[sooda]

How about the Flood and why we know that it did not happen?

First a qualifying question, does your God lie?

Here's breaking news from Israel. Jesus is coming back.

Did the War of Gog and Magog Begin ... - Breaking Israel News
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/102613/war-gog-magog-begin-saturday
“In many aspects, the situation in Syria conforms to the descriptions in the prophecies of the War of Gog and Magog,” Rabbi Winston told Breaking Israel News. “What happened on Shabbat could easily be the trigger to set off. Shooting down an airplane, especially inside Israeli airspace as was the case with the F-16, is an act of war.”

 

[nPeace]

Your are taking Einstein selectively out of context. You have been called on this before for misrepresenting citations to justify your agenda. Einstein did not believe in God. He considered himself an agnostic and non-believer. His admiration was for a humanist Jesus. He had a world view like Thomas Jefferson.

From: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[13] In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[14] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[15]

Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[16] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[17][18][19] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[20]

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[21]

In his book Ideas and Opinions (1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."[3] In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.[9]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[13] In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[14] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[15]

Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[16] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[17][18][19] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[20]

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[21]

In his book Ideas and Opinions (1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."[3] In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.[9]"

You are making the mistake you constantly make - that of having a presumption that one has a religious agenda, and then making the mistake of attributing anything that person says, to your presumption.
I have tried to point this out to you numerous times, but you still repeat it.
Read the post again.
Nowhere did I say that Einstein believed in my God, nor did I make a point of it.

Please. This is tiring.

I think you are the one with the agenda.
Come on. As a scientist, should you not be using the proper methods.
A good scientist does not start with a presumption, and then make up conclusions that supports it.

 

[nPeace]

The situation is the same, if you see God as visiting these horrors on people 'because he loves them'. Ask a battered housewife or kid and add up how many times they tell you 'yeah it's bad but he loves me'. If you tolerate a god who does all these thing- and even promise your soul to him!- you're acting just like that abused spouse or child, and that god is acting just like an abuser.

As for God carrying out justice, and giving people the chance to repent, and protects the vulnerable- just what 'justice' was God carrying out in the Flood? Did God send a Prophet or Messenger before the flood to even try and get the people of the world to straighten up and fly right? Who did God protect during the Flood- the innocent children who might have had less-than-stellar parents?

Wouldn't it have been a better display of justice to simply 'strike down' all the truly wicked people and leave those who were not wicked or were otherwise completely innocent (ie babies and children)? Would that not have served as a lesson to the ones who were left to keep to the straight and narrow path instead of turning to the Dark Side?

Now, as I have taken pains to explain, I don't think this is God at all doing these things recounted in the OT- I think it's Satan at the wheel, from first to last.

But if you insist on God being the perpetrator of these awful deeds, though, that's perfectly fine- I must have a higher opinion of God than you to think he would sully his hands with such sordid acts.

Slow down please.
Because he loves whom?
The victims, or the perpetrators?
Did you understand what I wrote?

Noah preached to the people all the while the ark was being built.
Were the children innocent? Please explain how they were, because God executed the death penalty even on them.
If you know your Bible, then the account of Lot, and his family should help with a proper answer.
So let's answer that first.

 

[nPeace]

.
“What Einstein actually believed”....

From the link ‘Bible’, above:
But he did not become an atheist. As Eugene Mallove wrote for The Washington Post in 1985, Einstein believed in what he called a “cosmic religion” – which was less a religion than “a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.

Excerpt from Einstein’s letter rejecting God to be auctioned

Here’s another...
Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Bold type is mine, to highlight.)

Intelligent Design, anyone?

Correct.
Einstein - "Glimpses of the Great"
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

 

[sojourner]

Okay, let's look at the Flood.

Man is all wicked- wickedness everywhere you look. Except for Noah- a WINE MAKER- who is, with his family, allegedly the only decent man around. So- the highly improbable story of the Ark notwithstanding- God decides, in his infinite Love and Mercy, to kill everything on the face of the earth with a mighty flood saving only a pair of each animal and Noah's family.

But why drown everyone? Was it to 'teach those wicked men a lesson'? Well, fine- they're dead- so the lesson is completely irrelevant. Besides the method of execution, why kill them at all? Why not demonstrate this Love and Mercy by sending a Messenger- a Prophet- to work on these people and get them thinking the way you want them to? For that matter why not just ZAP them into 'correct thinking'? This sounds like a perfect opportunity for Christ to have made an appearance to sort everyone out- but he did neither.

So how do you justify killing potentially millions of people as being Loving and Kind when there were many other methods available to turn them around for the better? When your dog acts up, you don't take him out back and drown him- you train him the way you want him to act. Why would God think less of Man than we think of dogs?

But when looked at reversed- with Satan doing these things instead of God- it makes perfect sense; he's doing the vicious, spiteful things Satan is known for.

Except that there is a mythic trope extant called the “Faithful Remnant.” The flood myth falls within that trope. In this trope, God saves the faithful remnant, in this case, Noah et. al. This falls squarely within the realm of Divine activity. Since Satan doesn’t appear in Genesis, we can safely assume that this is not an act of Satan.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, let's look at the Flood.

Man is all wicked- wickedness everywhere you look. Except for Noah- a WINE MAKER- who is, with his family, allegedly the only decent man around. So- the highly improbable story of the Ark notwithstanding- God decides, in his infinite Love and Mercy, to kill everything on the face of the earth with a mighty flood saving only a pair of each animal and Noah's family.

But why drown everyone? Was it to 'teach those wicked men a lesson'? Well, fine- they're dead- so the lesson is completely irrelevant. Besides the method of execution, why kill them at all? Why not demonstrate this Love and Mercy by sending a Messenger- a Prophet- to work on these people and get them thinking the way you want them to? For that matter why not just ZAP them into 'correct thinking'? This sounds like a perfect opportunity for Christ to have made an appearance to sort everyone out- but he did neither.

So how do you justify killing potentially millions of people as being Loving and Kind when there were many other methods available to turn them around for the better? When your dog acts up, you don't take him out back and drown him- you train him the way you want him to act. Why would God think less of Man than we think of dogs?

But when looked at reversed- with Satan doing these things instead of God- it makes perfect sense; he's doing the vicious, spiteful things Satan is known for.

I'll allow @Hockeycowboy to respond to this, but I would like to make this point. God is no magician that waves a magic wand, and puts people under a stell, so that they now say, "Yes master. Whatever you wish master." Nor has God created robots, that he can flip an on off switch, to cause people to be the way he wants them to be.

He created beings, with the ability to freely choose what they will do - what they want to do. Like a loving father, he points the way, and shows us the way - wanting the best for us, but not forcing us against our will.
(Isaiah 48:17, 18) 17 This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, The One teaching you to benefit yourself, The One guiding you in the way you should walk. 18 If only you would pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

When Jehovah brought the flood, he did not leave anyone clueless as to why.
(Genesis 6:13) . . .“I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.
Things were to an extreme level.
We may look at today's world and say things are bad, and many of us expect worst, but can we begin to imagine how things were in Noah's day?

 

[sojourner]

This is your opinion.
I don't hold to that opinion, and a study of the Bible shows differently.
There are many valid reasons for ruling out myths in the Bible.
Also, there is evidence outside the Bible which does show we can accept it as historically accurate.
It does not require any more faith to hold this view, than it does to hold to your opinion.

I think one who makes the claim that the Bible is full of myths, require faith - faith in the scholars that support what they want to hear, and prefer, and faith that their belief is correct.

Actually, it does require more faith to hold your position, because the evidence is all against you. This isn’t opinion; it’s the result of textual criticism.

 

[Goodman John]

Slow down please.
Because he loves whom?
The victims, or the perpetrators?
Did you understand what I wrote?

Noah preached to the people all the while the ark was being built.
Were the children innocent? Please explain how they were, because God executed the death penalty even on them.
If you know your Bible, then the account of Lot, and his family should help with a proper answer.
So let's answer that first.

Given Noah's age and the lack of a proper workforce (not to mention material and heavy-lift machines) I don't expect he had a lot of free time in which to preach to anyone while the Ark was allegedly being built. Certainly not on a global scale where he could reach everyone and give them a chance to repent and 'get right'. And if indeed Noah WAS preaching while he built the Ark he must have been a loser of a preacher, not bringing ONE SINGLE PERSON to God outside of his immediate family.

How were the children NOT innocent? Or are you simply assuming they were guilty of something worth being executed for, because that's what God decided was their fate? God drowned babies, so they must have been guilty of something. Nice way to show that Love and Mercy, huh?

I'm not talking about Lot, I'm talking about Noah and the Flood. Don't change the subject because the story gets difficult to explain.

(But we can talk about Lot later on, and perhaps you can explain why it was better for Lot to offer up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped instead of his house guests, or why it was okay later for those same virgin daughters to get him drunk and sleep with him so they'd both get pregnant. Gotta love those biblical family values.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct.
Einstein - "the God Letter"
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Why do you ignore the last quote of Einstein in this topic? You rely upon much older ones when the word "atheist" had a different usage than now. He thought that your beliefs were rather absurd to say the least. He did not believe in a magic god.

 

[nPeace]

Given Noah's age and the lack of a proper workforce (not to mention material and heavy-lift machines) I don't expect he had a lot of free time in which to preach to anyone while the Ark was allegedly being built. Certainly not on a global scale where he could reach everyone and give them a chance to repent and 'get right'. And if indeed Noah WAS preaching while he built the Ark he must have been a loser of a preacher, not bringing ONE SINGLE PERSON to God outside of his immediate family.

Where may I ask, is that written?
Am I correct in saying that you are merely speculating?
Then you must not be referring to the Bible.

How were the children NOT innocent? Or are you simply assuming they were guilty of something worth being executed for, because that's what God decided was their fate? God drowned babies, so they must have been guilty of something. Nice way to show that Love and Mercy, huh?

I'm not talking about Lot, I'm talking about Noah and the Flood. Don't change the subject because the story gets difficult to explain.

This is my question to you.
Are you saying you can't answer?
I gave you the account of Lot, to help, in case you came up empty.

(But we can talk about Lot later on, and perhaps you can explain why it was better for Lot to offer up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped instead of his house guests, or why it was okay later for those same virgin daughters to get him drunk and sleep with him so they'd both get pregnant. Gotta love those biblical family values.)

Sure. Later sounds fine.
So can you answer the question?

 

[Goodman John]

I'll allow @Hockeycowboy to respond to this, but I would like to make this point. God is no magician that waves a magic wand, and puts people under a stell, so that the now say, "Yes master. Whatever you wish master." Nor has God created robots, that he can flip an on off switch, to cause people to be the way he wants them to be.

He created beings, with the ability to freely choose what they will do - what they want to do. Like a loving father, he points the way, and shows us the way - wanting the best for us, but not forcing us against our will.

Okay, so God gives us Free Will to do as we choose- so explain why God would punish Man for exercising his Free Will and choosing to turn away from God? Why even pretend Man has a real choice if his only choices are A) obey God in all things and do exactly as he commands, or B) Do you own thing- as you were created to do- but if you don't do A you're going to punished severely, maybe even eternally. If the choices are Cake or Horrible Death, are you choosing the Cake because you really, really like Cake or are you choosing it because you're not really interested in a Horrible Death? Do you follow God because you truly, honestly, deep down love him or do you follow God because you're terrified of the consequences of not doing so?

And sure, like a loving father God points the way- but most loving fathers don't kill their children when they misbehave or don't go into the family business. That's why I don't believe it's God doing all of these terrible things in the OT.