The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?

[outhouse]

The theory of evolution is much the same as religion.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Factually different. One is based on observed facts and evidence, the other faith.

 

[outhouse]

I asked him about the great flood myth of the Bible. Apparently, drowning most people on earth is a moral guide that "stands tall", in his estimation.

No you didn't. You made a brief post about genocide with no context to discuss. Im not a mind reader, make yourself more clear.


Next, the flood is mythology it never happened, as written. So there was no genocide. It takes education to understand the book. Its why most people go listen to someone learned on Sunday.


This is a reflection of pre existing ancient flood mythology in that geographic location, and it now has the Israelite spin put on it to reflect their cultural and moral needs with a new devotion to one god.


If you need more help understanding this in a theological sense, please let us n know so we can help you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see you will have a combative mocking attitude to anything I say and ...

Yes, I can make up my mind smarty-pants. ...

^ No mocking here.

 

[Blastcat]

What it says is:

​

I believe that the Flood narrative is an example of redacting folklore in such a way as to give it a unique ethical content.

ethical content of WHAT?

Not of a god indulging in global genocide? Is this GOOD ethical content or EVIL ethical content? In my narrow world view, drowning everybody on earth except for just one family and a bunch of animals is NOT what I consider good.

Saying that the flood narrative has a unique ethical content isn't saying very much about the question. I was asking outhouse if he thought the ethical content was of EVIL or GOOD.

Is it common that people simply avoid questions in here?

 

[Blastcat]

No you didn't. You made a brief post about genocide with no context to discuss. Im not a mind reader, make yourself more clear.


Next, the flood is mythology it never happened, as written. So there was no genocide. It takes education to understand the book. Its why most people go listen to someone learned on Sunday.


This is a reflection of pre existing ancient flood mythology in that geographic location, and it now has the Israelite spin put on it to reflect their cultural and moral needs with a new devotion to one god.

If you need more help understanding this in a theological sense, please let us n know so we can help you.

A simple answer to my question would suffice for now, thanks. Do you think that global genocide as depicted in the myth of the flood is a good thing? Do you think that the god depicted in this myth, as you call it, is a GOOD one?

I have no problem with the Bible being fiction. That being the case, in the STORY of the flood, is god acting in what you consider to be a GOOD way or a bad way?

Is global genocide a good thing, in your view, and why?

 

[Blastcat]

I see you will have a combative mocking attitude to anything I say and we're not going to get anywhere. You go straight to how can I combat what he says instead of actually trying to understand why an intelligent person thinks differently. You might consider 'he can't be that dumb'. For example I fully understand the atheist's position because I was interested in understanding it. (And I was an atheist once). But anyway, let me jump back into the fray for a short time:

I am sorry if you think there is a "fray" to get into here. I am merely asking your questions about your position, and clarifying my own. I'm sorry if you think I'm making fun of YOU , but really, if I am a bit derisive, it's towards your thoughts, and you don't have to be so attached to them being all true. Maybe something you write is MIGHT be ridiculous. That would not really be MY fault.

I'm just trying to

1. Understand your position,
2. Show you how I might find them ridiculous, and
3. Ask you questions for clarification.

I'm sorry that you interpret my curiosity and rigor offensive. If you need me to accept and agree with everything you write, there will be no conversation at all. I can stop having anything to do with you, if you prefer. Just say the word.That way, you will have an easier time of it believing you make sense.

God (actually Brahman in my case) is beyond our ability to fully comprehend. But through concepts we can understand, we can approach an understanding. Brahman can be experienced but once experienced can not be described in the world of finite minds.

Oh, because before, you said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend. Now, you have altered your position. You can APPROACH an understanding, you say. So, now, you have changed your position. You CAN comprehend your God. Fine. Can you explain where you get your data concerning this Brahman? You say you can experience it, and that once experienced, you cannot DESCRIBE what it is. Hmmm.. So, your words aren't going to work, if you can't explain what it is you believe in with words.

Well, so much for my understanding of your beliefs. If you can't even describe what it is you believe in, how am I expected to understand what that is? I guess I'll simply have to ignore anything you say about this god of yours. Whatever you DO say is going to be meaningless.

All I can get from your weird epistemological position is that you believe, but you don't know what it is you believe IN. Well, neither do I , I don't know what you believe in OTHER than the name you give this .. indescribable thing. Your label "Brahman" doesn't describe anything BUT your experience, and I can't have access to that.

So, ok, you believe in X, Y or Z.. how nice for you. I don't see how that's relevant to any reasonable discussion.

Yes, I can make up my mind smarty-pants. There are God-Realized saints/sages that have 'experienced' that which can not be fully explained in language. And they can teach us the path to higher realizations.

My pants are WHAT?... never mind.. I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.. Right?

So, in order to support your claims of personal experience, you cite other claims of personal experience as if that would validate yours by.. osmosis or something. But I'm sorry. YOU have no access to their personal experience, and I don't have any access to their personal experience. So bringing personal experience as IF it were some kind of evidence is fallacious.

Just because people experience things does in NO WAY attest to the truth about what they say about the experiences. Sorry.

Actually, the great spiritual sages/saints go beyond the thinking mind when they experience the divine. The thinking mind is actually an obstacle to getting at spiritual levels beyond the mind.

Why should I give what they claim any credence? They are insulating their beliefs behind an impenetrable wall. If they can't use reason, then that's it for REASONING.. You aren't going to be making sense if you abandon reason, and so, I will have lost all interest in trying to make sense out of anything you might have to say.

Babbling unreasonably isn't at all interesting to me. I'm actually interested in reasoned debate and conversation, and I won't just agree with everything you have to say just because you can't provide any reason or description. That would be your FAILURE of reason, not your great SUCCESS...

 

[outhouse]

Do you think that global genocide as depicted in the myth of the flood is a good thing?

Who is focusing on the mythical genocide that never took place?

The context of the story is not about killing people for no reason, Is it?


The story is about saving decent humanity from evil humanity, you do not get to spin it, any way you wish.

It also mirrors creation mythology in which you have cycles of creation and un-creation, and re-creation. Life and death.

 

[Blastcat]

I doubt that, but, very well ...

If you doubt my honesty, I have to ask you in public to refrain from addressing me.

Words are tools serving two interdependent functions: conceptualization and communication. I could care less if you choose to defend or employ blunted tools primarily because I am not invested in either your conceptions or your communications having value.

I didn't ask you for a lecture on the structure of words. In the future, I will ask you to to not address me. I am sorry that I ever addressed you.

 

[Blastcat]

Someone who says that they met God can be believed or not. It's the same with everything in life. If someone says that they met so and so, we choose to believe it or not to believe it. However, with religion believing it or not becomes a more serious issue because more is at stake. It doesn't really matter if someone is lying about meeting the president last week. The theory of evolution is much the same as religion. Many scientists make wild claims (like Christians you will say) that are just stories to me too....like fish one day grew legs and crawled out of the oceans and evolved into bigger and bigger animals. It all needs faith to believe just like those who have a religion. Atheists have their stories too and choose to believe some stories and reject others.....we all do it. In the end Atheists are no different from any other member of any other religion. God bless.

Ok, you think evolution is an atheist invention. And that in your view, it's not real. I suppose all of the evidence supporting the theory doesn't count for you. That's common.

And you believe that I am in a religion when I say that I'm not. Ok.. you don't believe that, either.

But when it comes to god claims, you are more generous.. God claims can be believed in or not.. doesn't really matter. BUT when it comes to evolution or what I tell you about atheism, you are magically transformed into a skeptic.

And then magically back again into some super non-deciding person when god comes up again.. That sounds to me just like a double standard. One set of epistemological standards for god questions and another set for anything you don't happen to believe in.

How convenient that your standards are so flexible like that..

 

[Blastcat]

Who is focusing on the mythical genocide that never took place?

The context of the story is not about killing people for no reason, Is it?

I was asking you if you thought that GLOBAL GENOCIDE is ever justified, in your view, and if you thought the action is a moral one.

The story is about saving decent humanity from evil humanity, you do not get to spin it, any way you wish.

Oh, but you DO get to spin it any way you wish? How is killing everyone on earth but a very select few a GOOD thing, in your point of view? Remember, that the story has it that God drowned EVERYONE on earth but just one family. How is that good and kind?

It also mirrors creation mythology in which you have cycles of creation and un-creation, and re-creation. Life and death.

But in this case, the story or myth includes a god who drowns everyone on earth except for a select few. How is that good or kind or something to look up to, or a moral guide?

I see the drowning of people as a BAD thing. I see the drowning of everyone on earth except for a select few even MORE reprehensible. I can understand that SOME people might deserve some punishment..even say, drowning,, but BABIES?.. and BABIES IN THE WOMBS?.. and EVERYONE?... never.

Do you agree that genocide is a good moral act, in general?

 

[metis]

My problem with the above is that the term 'God' is thereby rendered superfluous and even unhelpful - as is often the case with term-dilution.

If the term is to have any value whatsoever, I think it must minimally signify preternaturel Agency and posit intentionality.

Maybe; maybe not. To a certain extent, it relates to whether one's approach is more pantheistic or panentheistic. With Spinoza, it appears more the latter; but with Einstein, more the former. Of the two, the panentheistic approach can avoid what you're saying, but it's not automatically so. In my case, I'm not taking a position on that as there simply is not enough information.

Those of us in science tend to make lousy theists.

Shabbat shalom

 

[outhouse]

How is killing everyone on earth

How does perverting the context and interpretation help anyone?

The story is about saving decent humanity from evil humanity.

But in this case, the story or myth includes a god who drowns everyone on earth

Only if you ruin the beauty of the text and read it literally. Many people know better then this.

 

[Baladas]

Even though billions of people probably claim they know, I have strong doubts anyone really knows. My inkling is that God, or maybe even Gods, is/are intrinsic with "creation" (Spinoza's and Einstein's approach), but I'm not willing to bet my house on this.

This is my view also. On both points.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the term is to have any value whatsoever, I think it must minimally signify preternatural Agency and posit intentionality.

Why should it have any value?.. It might be a completely spurious term. We can safely dilute AND delete such a term as completely irrelevant to reality.

Thanks for sharing.

I would have enjoyed a response to the question more than your thanks.

I doubt that, but, very well ...

Words are tools serving two interdependent functions: conceptualization and communication. I could care less if you choose to defend or employ blunted tools primarily because I am not invested in either your conceptions or your communications having value.

I didn't ask you for a lecture on the structure of words.

I didn't lecture you on the structure of words. I simply answered the question as requested.

In the future, I will ask you to to not address me. I am sorry that I ever addressed you.

Mostly you're sorry that your silly rhetorical 'question' proved underwhelming.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Maybe; maybe not. To a certain extent, it relates to whether one's approach is more pantheistic or panentheistic.

If 'G-d' is everything (or simply catalyst) what value is to be gained by employing the term? It seems to me that its principle effect is to inject noise into the conversation.

Those of us in science tend to make lousy theists.

But potentially good communicators nonetheless. I seriously doubt that either Spinoza or Einstein cared much for God-talk: the former was seeking to systematically deconstruct the term while the latter was responding to questions about it.

Shabbat shalom

Shabbat shalom!

 

[InChrist]

I see the drowning of people as a BAD thing. I see the drowning of everyone on earth except for a select few even MORE reprehensible. I can understand that SOME people might deserve some punishment..even say, drowning,, but BABIES?.. and BABIES IN THE WOMBS?.. and EVERYONE?... never.

Do you agree that genocide is a good moral act, in general?

Are you pro-life and someone who stands for the life of the unborn? Do you approve of abortion or consider it to be murder? Have you helped an unwed mother or adopted a baby who would have otherwise been killed? I’m just asking since you are focusing so much on babies and those in the womb as reason to call God bad.

When humans attempt to destroy an entire group of people it is wrong whatever the reasons, but even though we know it's wrong humans always seem to make exceptions in their situation. In the scriptures which you are getting the Flood account from, it is also repeatedly revealed that God is the Creator of life and Judge who determines right and wrong, life and death. He alone has the wisdom and right to end life according to His judgment as God the Author of life.

 

[metis]

If 'G-d' is everything (or simply catalyst) what value is to be gained by employing the term? It seems to me that its principle effect is to inject noise into the conversation.


But potentially good communicators nonetheless. I seriously doubt that either Spinoza or Einstein cared much for God-talk: the former was seeking to systematically deconstruct the term while the latter was responding to questions about it.

Shabbat shalom!

When someone asks me if I'm an "agnostic", I answer in the affirmative. However, I do have a leaning in the direction that, if there is a God, then He is likely to be somehow so interwoven into "Nature" as to be inseparable. The reason I drift in this direction is simply because I find no reason to believe in miracles, using the term to stand for that which is sometimes referred to as "supernatural". Sometimes I will use the term "non-theistic" to refer to myself.

I disagree with your assessment of Spinoza, but can more likely agree with your assessment of Einstein. Ever read Spinoza? Even if you have, let me recommend the book "A Book Forged In Hell" by Steven Nadler. I have read three books on Spinoza, but this one is the best by far, imo.

See ya on the other side of Shabbos.

 

[InChrist]

Do you think the Crusaders(classic and modern) were inspired by the war verses in OT and NT(the sword verse and Book of revelation)?

I think if NT was 100% about love, and christians followed that while dumping OT there wouldnt be crusades(fighting for the sake of Trinity).

I think the crusades were inspired by politically/religiously motivated power hungry groups or individuals. If verses from the OT or NT are used then they were used out of context and in a twisted manner by such groups or individuals for their own self-serving gain. From my perspective the entire Bible is about the same God with the same consistent love expressed to humanity whether it involves fair and righteous judgment or mercy..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When someone asks me if I'm an "agnostic", I answer in the affirmative. However, I do have a leaning in the direction that, if there is a God, then He is likely to be somehow so interwoven into "Nature" as to be inseparable. The reason I drift in this direction is simply because I find no reason to believe in miracles, using the term to stand for that which is sometimes referred to as "supernatural". Sometimes I will use the term "non-theistic" to refer to myself.

IMO, to say that {A} and {B} are inseparable is not at all the same as saying that {A} is reducible to {B}. I have no problem with panentheism.

I disagree with your assessment of Spinoza, but can more likely agree with your assessment of Einstein. Ever read Spinoza? Even if you have, let me recommend the book "A Book Forged In Hell" by Steven Nadler. I have read three books on Spinoza, but this one is the best by far, imo.

Then I'll defer to your assessment. I've read Spinoza (with difficulty) along with articles dealing with Spinoza, but I've never read a book about him. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[George-ananda]

I am sorry if you think there is a "fray" to get into here. I am merely asking your questions about your position, and clarifying my own. I'm sorry if you think I'm making fun of YOU , but really, if I am a bit derisive, it's towards your thoughts, and you don't have to be so attached to them being all true. Maybe something you write is MIGHT be ridiculous. That would not really be MY fault.

I'm just trying to

1. Understand your position,
2. Show you how I might find them ridiculous, and
3. Ask you questions for clarification.

I'm sorry that you interpret my curiosity and rigor offensive. If you need me to accept and agree with everything you write, there will be no conversation at all. I can stop having anything to do with you, if you prefer. Just say the word.That way, you will have an easier time of it believing you make sense.



Oh, because before, you said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend. Now, you have altered your position. You can APPROACH an understanding, you say. So, now, you have changed your position. You CAN comprehend your God. Fine. Can you explain where you get your data concerning this Brahman? You say you can experience it, and that once experienced, you cannot DESCRIBE what it is. Hmmm.. So, your words aren't going to work, if you can't explain what it is you believe in with words.

Well, so much for my understanding of your beliefs. If you can't even describe what it is you believe in, how am I expected to understand what that is? I guess I'll simply have to ignore anything you say about this god of yours. Whatever you DO say is going to be meaningless.

All I can get from your weird epistemological position is that you believe, but you don't know what it is you believe IN. Well, neither do I , I don't know what you believe in OTHER than the name you give this .. indescribable thing. Your label "Brahman" doesn't describe anything BUT your experience, and I can't have access to that.

So, ok, you believe in X, Y or Z.. how nice for you. I don't see how that's relevant to any reasonable discussion.



My pants are WHAT?... never mind.. I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.. Right?

So, in order to support your claims of personal experience, you cite other claims of personal experience as if that would validate yours by.. osmosis or something. But I'm sorry. YOU have no access to their personal experience, and I don't have any access to their personal experience. So bringing personal experience as IF it were some kind of evidence is fallacious.

Just because people experience things does in NO WAY attest to the truth about what they say about the experiences. Sorry.



Why should I give what they claim any credence? They are insulating their beliefs behind an impenetrable wall. If they can't use reason, then that's it for REASONING.. You aren't going to be making sense if you abandon reason, and so, I will have lost all interest in trying to make sense out of anything you might have to say.

Babbling unreasonably isn't at all interesting to me. I'm actually interested in reasoned debate and conversation, and I won't just agree with everything you have to say just because you can't provide any reason or description. That would be your FAILURE of reason, not your great SUCCESS...

Well the problem in our communication may be that we started in the middle of my beliefs; not the beginning. The best way is for me to explain my position from the beginning.

My interest in all this came from starting at the materialist-atheist position. Certain things happened that got me curious about the paranormal. I studied this quite a bit and came to the objective position that, beyond reasonable doubt, things happen that could not happen in the worldview of the atheist-materialist. My interest became about knowing what this 'more' than materialism could be. I started studying Theosophical and other esoteric literature and saw how what I thought was paranormal was really the normal in an expanded view of reality. Its key is people that can sense beyond the physical; what some call 'second attention'. From my study and considering things from both sides I objectively came to the opinion these people have valuable things to tell us. And also these understandings have been understood and systematized by eastern wisdom traditions (Indian/Hindu). Going further in this branch of Hinduism is the teaching that consciousness is fundamental and One (called Brahman).

So I might not be your typical theist that starts with arguing for the existence of God and then determining my position in the universe (top-down approach). I start from the human experience and from there go on to create my understanding of the universe (bottom-up approach).

So before you ask, 'no' I can't objectively verify my beliefs for you. But I will say and will defend the position that the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition is the strongest hypothesis out there (and that includes atheistic-materialism).