Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[ecco]

Then where did you come up with whole “God committed genocide” thing, if it’s not there in the text? Answer: you inferred it from the story, which means you interpreted what was actually written. Again: poorly.


Of course they did! But, in the story, the evil was so pervasive that it was worse than making a clean sweep. You’re treating the story as if it were news reporting instead of an allegory of the state of humanity. Your interpretation of what is written is sloppy.

I used the plural, because there are at least four different authors for Genesis. The plural is correct.


To whom? Who, in the world of the flood narrative, has authority higher than God to whom God should be accountable? You don’t get to just insinuate your own biases into the story. It results in a poor interpretation, such as you’re demonstrating magnificently here.


You understand that this is both mythic and allegory, right? You do realize that the authors are making a point toward which the story details point, yes?


No. It’s mythic and allegory. Didn’t actually happen. The theological point of the story is the “righteous remnant” — a recurring theme in biblical narrative — not “God is a genocidal monster.”

Your interpretation of the bible and the author(s) are not in line with those of many Christians. Yes, I understand that this is both mythic and allegory. If I realized your viewpoint, I would have responded differently. See post #477.

However, to those who do take things like the Flood literally, I'll stand by what I posted. God's actions were genocidal.

 

[sojourner]

What accounts am I conflating? I'm talking about the OT. I'm addressing people who believe God is omniscient. There is no on/off with omniscience

The creation account and the account where God is all-knowing. God is clearly not all-knowing in the creation myth.

The OT (as I’ve asserted before) does not contain just one, cohesive picture of a God. It’s more like a patchwork quilt. So, which piece of cloth are you talking about?

I believe God is all knowledge. I also recognize that the creation myth does not recognize God as all-knowing.

Different accounts — or pieces of cloth — present God differently.

 

[sojourner]

Yes. I agree, and I think we can determine that by a process of elimination (I spelled that word wrong previously), as I showed.

Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin?, is one question.
If a person says yes, and later says no, the we can eliminate that person.
If they say yes, and if conflicts with the overall text, then we can eliminate them.
Agreed?

In the creation myth, God did not know what they would do. But the collage that we’ve constructed of God contains pictures of God that are different.

We can’t just cut out (eliminate) the parts of the quilt we don’t like. This is a collaboration.

 

[sojourner]

However, to those who do take things like the Flood literally, I'll stand by what I posted. God's actions were genocidal

A literalistic treatment of the flood narrative results in a poor interpretation, because it doesn’t take under consideration a literary critique necessary to a proper understanding of what the authors were saying. We don’t refute a literalistic interpretation with a literalistic interpretation. We refute a literalistic interpretation by pointing out scientific, literary, historical, and sociological incongruities presented by such a treatment. Why? Because the point of the story isn’t “God committed genocidal atrocities.” And you just end up looking puerile when you make that argument, because it doesn’t fit with the real point of the story.

 

[nPeace]

In the creation myth, God did not know what they would do. But the collage that we’ve constructed of God contains pictures of God that are different.

We can’t just cut out (eliminate) the parts of the quilt we don’t like. This is a collaboration.

Why do you call it a creation myth, and what is the collage constructed of God, and who is the 'we' that constructed it?

 

[sojourner]

Why do you call it a creation myth, and what is the collage constructed of God, and who is the 'we' that constructed it?

Because that’s the genre of literature: myth. The collage consists of all the different pictures of God presented in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible and the oral tradition employs many authors.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I'm not aware of this.
Do you have a reference?

Where is it said that this God created anything defective, and knew how they would turn out? Can you point out where this is found?

Or were you just giving your opinion on what you interpret?

A reference? It's called life and common sense.

We are obviously defective. We are the most destructive, most violent, most uncooperative, narcissistic animal ever to have evolved. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around the planet.

You really shouldn't need any references or opinions of others to see that. That is the reality outside of your books. If more time was spent by the human race actually cooperating and working on changing that instead of living in and for ancient mythology, we might have gotten somewhere. Unless there is some dramatic and sudden change in human nature, you will get to go see your God a lot sooner than we may have otherwise. The ecosystems of this planet are on their way out. Greed rules and If 88% or higher of humanity believes in various versions of God I would say it hasn't helped much.

Talk is cheap. Try action.

 

[nPeace]

Because that’s the genre of literature: myth. The collage consists of all the different pictures of God presented in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible and the oral tradition employs many authors.

Lost.
Can you expand?

 

[nPeace]

A reference? It's called life and common sense.

We are obviously defective. We are the most destructive, most violent, most uncooperative, narcissistic animal ever to have evolved. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around the planet.

You really shouldn't need any references or opinions of others to see that. That is the reality outside of your books. If more time was spent by the human race actually cooperating and working on changing that instead of living in and for ancient mythology, we might have gotten somewhere. Unless there is some dramatic and sudden change in human nature, you will get to go see your God a lot sooner than we may have otherwise. The ecosystems of this planet are on their way out. Greed rules and If 88% or higher of humanity believes in various versions of God I would say it hasn't helped much.

Talk is cheap. Try action.

You know, that's a pretty accurate picture you have painted of the world.
Did you know that that ancient book that some call mythology is affecting the lives of millions so that they are not living like the animals you described?
In fact that dramatic and sudden change in human nature that you welcome, has actually happened to them, and they are now a nation within nations. They enjoy an environment - a condition - which allows them to enjoy peace and unity with their brothers in every part of the world... serving their God together.
It's called a Spiritual Paradise.
Moreover, they look forward to crossing over into a physical Paradise. One that lasts forever.

First though... the "animals" must go...unless the "animals" change.

If it were not for this ancient book labeled by some as mythology, they would be more vicious animals to add to the lot you mentioned.
Thanks to this book, that is not the case. Amen. Thank you Jehovah.

Doesn't that say something about this book?
You can judge for yourself. Million have judged it, not as a book of myths, but as the word of God - that is saving lives, and protecting people from destructive philosophies that are really a big contributer to people being - to quote you...

the most destructive, most violent, most uncooperative, narcissistic animal ever to have evolved

These destructive philosophies tell people they evolved from a species of primate, and they are really animals, so what else do we expect?
If you repeatedly tell a child he is no good, what will the child most likely be?

On the other hand, if you tell the child repeatedly he is loved, Oh.. how much that can be a good stimulant for the heart and mind.
That's what the truth from the Bible does - stimulate love in the hearts of people... and "animals" too.

So yes. I agree. Talk is cheap, and we really need to use common sense.

 

[1robin]

Of course...not. Lol. If I remember my Sunday schools teachings, there is not much written in the Bible against gay marriage, while there is a lot against homosexual acts.

I did not realize we were contrasting what the bible says about homosexual marriage and homosexual sex. I thought you were asking about the cost of promiscuity.

But if you really believe that a piece of paper with a stamp is all you need to prevent widespread sin, then you should be the first to approve gay marriages. Especially, if gay acts are so dangerous, as you probably believe.

Ciao

- viole

I did not suggest anything in the way of a solution. I honestly don't have one, nor do I need to have one. I do not need to know how to cure a problem to show that it is a problem. I can know perfectly well that my car is malfunctioning without having a clue about how to repair it. You appear to be employing a smoke and mirrors tactic concerning the issues at hand.

 

[sojourner]

Lost.
Can you expand?

I called the flood account “mythic” because that’s what kind of literature it is. It isn’t fiction. It isn’t biography. It isn’t poetry. It’s myth, as in a narrative story with a god as it’s theme.

The Bible presents us with a collage of different images of God. Some of them present God as loving, some present God as vengeful. Some present God as omnipresent. Some present God as not omnipresent. It’s a collage of different pictures.

The Bible was written by several authors. Each gospel had a different author. Paul wrote several epistles. Genesis had at least 4 authors, and Isaiah 2 authors.

Clearer now?

 

[1robin]

What is a common expressions?

Ciao

- viole

Is the presence of an obviously misplaced "s" really rendering my statement incoherent for you? Your far too intelligent for me to go along with that.

 

[nPeace]

I called the flood account “mythic” because that’s what kind of literature it is. It isn’t fiction. It isn’t biography. It isn’t poetry. It’s myth, as in a narrative story with a god as it’s theme.

The Bible presents us with a collage of different images of God. Some of them present God as loving, some present God as vengeful. Some present God as omnipresent. Some present God as not omnipresent. It’s a collage of different pictures.

The Bible was written by several authors. Each gospel had a different author. Paul wrote several epistles. Genesis had at least 4 authors, and Isaiah 2 authors.

Clearer now?

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Your opinion.
Yup. Clear enough. Thanks.

 

[1robin]

ecco previously
↑
So you are now saying that when you wrote promiscuity is the root cause of all manner of evil....
You really meant...
Promiscuity causes some problems.
-and-
If you meant promiscuity causes some problems why did you feel the need to get overly dramatic and write promiscuity is the root cause of all manner of evil?

Are you still hung up on this silly semantic technicality?

Promiscuity causes a huge amount of suffering of many types. Of all the moral failing that plague mankind promiscuity is one of the worst.

There, now can we stop circling the semantic drain now?

What does that even mean? That is not the same as: promiscuity is the root cause of all manner of evil.

See the above. Is there any hope of getting this discussion back out of the ditch?

Why did you feel the need to get overly dramatic and write promiscuity is the root cause of all manner of evil?

It's not overly dramatic. Promiscuity causes an unbelievable amount of misery in the world. Do you even remember what this thread is about?

Semantics are not a technicality, they are important.

Only so far as others understand what we say and there is no way you did not understand what I said about promiscuity. No one else seems to have a problem wit hit but you seem obsessed.

Was I supposed to be defending promiscuity?

Good point (I assumed you were), but if your not what on earth is it you are doing?

What leftists? Where? When?

If you don't know I don't have time to point it out for you.

In point of fact it's the Fundies who defend god's genocidal flood that spend a lot of time trying to defend the misery and death caused by that incident.

Finally, you almost started a debate here. Do you want to discuss the moral justification for the flood?

 

[Deeje]

You were attempting to compare mere human activity-- regardless of justified or not-- with the actions of an actual GOD.

It would be the same as comparing the actions of a common house cat, with Einstein-- only even THAT is too narrow. You tried to "justify" your god's henious actions by pointing to "Well HOOMANS DIDIT TOO"... as if that would "justify" or "excuse" the horrific actions of your god....!

Well actually, it was the other way around. You justified the bloodshed when humans did it for political reasons but vilified God for acts of justice that he carried out in the past. It was HOOMANS justifying their violence because GODDIT IT TOO. Can't you see that?

It is exactly what the Catholic Church did as well.....they invented a god that tortures people in a burning hell and decided that if God could do that, it justified them burning people alive at the stake. Sickenly sad...isn't it?

I realize this is a stretch for you, but really: that is what you tried to do.

Apparently, you don't think much of your god, nor do you hold it in very high esteem...

I know that I think way more of God than you do, but that is because I know him.......but hey, you are free to believe whatever you like about him....it doesn't make it true however. And if you go down shaking your fist at him, please remember that it was your choice to believe what you did. Its not like you weren't told or anything....right?

 

[sojourner]

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Your opinion.
Yup. Clear enough. Thanks.

What do you mean “my opinion?” I stated no opinion; only the evidence at hand.

 

[1robin]

I am. My father cheated on my mother while married. Clearly, marriage isn't a magic spell that stops hormones.

What are you still confused about? Your father was wrong and nothing I said was put in jeopardy by what you stated here. I don't know what answer to give you because I don't see any problem here. I never suggested marriage was the magic bullet that fixes everything but all things being equal we are better with it than without it.

Peter never had sex with his wife?

I posted quite a bit of info on this. The best scholarship suggests Peter's wife died before he was called to be a disciple.

Or the bible has a habit of mentioning and then quickly forgetting inconvenient characters.

Since God nor Christ mandated that the apostles have no wives there is nothing inconvenient here.

Like Joseph.

What is like Joseph?

Harder to promote the idea that Jesus is the literal Son of God when Daddy is sitting right there in the kitchen, after all.

There are no human competitors for Christ's father than God (the father). I don't know what your talking about. There is no one in the kitchen to worry about.

 

[nPeace]

What do you mean “my opinion?” I stated no opinion; only the evidence at hand.

I called the flood account “mythic” because that’s what kind of literature it is. It isn’t fiction. It isn’t biography. It isn’t poetry. It’s myth, as in a narrative story with a god as it’s theme.

Proof?

 

[ecco]

The creation account and the account where God is all-knowing. God is clearly not all-knowing in the creation myth.

The OT (as I’ve asserted before) does not contain just one, cohesive picture of a God. It’s more like a patchwork quilt. So, which piece of cloth are you talking about?

I believe God is all knowledge. I also recognize that the creation myth does not recognize God as all-knowing.

Different accounts — or pieces of cloth — present God differently.

No, not different accounts. One account and the beliefs of many Christians.

ecco previously said: ↑

What accounts am I conflating? I'm talking about the OT. I'm addressing people who believe God is omniscient.​

 

[ecco]

A literalistic treatment of the flood narrative results in a poor interpretation...

Don't tell me, tell the people who take Genesis to be literal. I sure don't

We don’t refute a literalistic interpretation with a literalistic interpretation. We refute a literalistic interpretation by pointing out scientific, literary, historical, and sociological incongruities presented by such a treatment. Why? Because the point of the story isn’t “God committed genocidal atrocities.”

How does one point out the "scientific, literary, historical, and sociological incongruities" to one who reads Genesis as literal? To them the point of the story is a wonderful god created everything and man screwed it up.

And you just end up looking puerile when you make that argument, because it doesn’t fit with the real point of the story.

Yet none of them have ever accused me of being puerile.