no realy. they found a ttss system with some similar parts. but its not prove that those systems evolve from each other. car and airplane also share some parts: wheels, feul and so on. but they not evolve from each other. even if they was self replicating.
Hey Alan,
All the time. You’ve touched on an issue that comes up pretty regularly in this forum. Specifically, how does one decide which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. If I decide that I can accept a poetic 7 days, what about Adam and Eve? If I keep extending my poetic reading through Noah and the Flood, what stops me from deciding that the resurrection of Jesus was a poetic allegory? If I decide that the truth of Genesis does not lie in any historical or scientific sense, how do I deal with New Testament references to those events? All of these questions are ones that I have struggled with. While I have some thoughts on Genesis and other parts of the Bible, I have a hard time saying with absolute certainty that the flood did, did not, or partially happened. At the moment, I’ve found peace in humbly accepting that I don’t know. To sum up, I would put forward the following for your consideration.
What EXACTLY is it that you are considering putting your faith in? If your faith relies ‘knowing’ all the mysteries of the Bible then I am afraid that you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you base your faith on the resurrection of Jesus, then I think you have a solid foundation with which to explore those mysteries. Hope that helps and thanks for poking your head into this forum!
Respectfully,
Jim
Hey Patrick.
If you’re interested in an in-depth discussion on the “genocide” texts in the Bible may I recommend a great book called Did God Really Command Genocide by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan.
It’s a very exhaustive study in how Christians and Atheists have understood these difficult passages through out history, and it’s implications both philosophically, theologically, legally, morally, etc.
As Christians I believe there’s certain obligations for us to thoroughly investigate the claims, perspectives, of people who don’t believe (or think) like we do. Which, unfortunately, not every Christian likes to address contrary viewpoints and steer away from them… Which to me, can give Christianity a bad name.
Just like a Christian shouldn’t readily discount a claim by science, simply because of pre-conceived notions, an atheist should give religion the same considerations.
Your friend,
Timothy
Tim,
Thanks for the reference, I will check it out. Regarding the entire story of Noah, I just never could my scientific mind and my morality around it, even as a child. Scientifically, if there was truth to the story, there have to be some major indisputable evidences about its existence. This was suppose to have happened globally and just 4350 years ago and affected all people and all plants and animals worldwide. 4300 years ago there was 100’s of million people in the world spread over five continents. Something should have registered something about it, even if it was just locally occurring in just an area of the Levant. Today, wouldn’t you think that your genome and mine would converge to Noah and the other seven survivors? So the evidences just isn’t there to take a literal approach to it.
So what is left is a non-literal interpretation. That is where I have moral issues with the story. When is it okay to condone mass genocide? Of all people, young and old, to death? In addition all animals and plants? Saying everybody was wicked just isn’t enough. That is why I am strongly against telling of this story to children. It gives the wrong moral message. No matter how it is sugar coated, it is a story of mass genocide and justification of it. A child hearing that story today is given a message to listen to God’s commands no matter how innately morally wrong it may seem. In fact it is usually glorified, in showing Noah “taking care of” all the animals. To me, it is not a story to be glorified and certain not worthy of a huge relica in the middle of Kentucky paid for with sales tax subsidies.
Hello again.
While I appreciate your obvious concerns here I will try my best (though I’m sure others before me have explained better) to explain my views on this complicated topic.
Also on a side note I misinterpreted your meaning of “genocide” – I thought you were referring to the deliberate massacre of a particular ethnic group, so the book I suggest was about the Joshua Wars.
There is evidence of a local flood that occurred in the Mesopotamian region, around that same time period, I think it’s called the Black Sea basins. As for some interpreters like Hugh Ross, he takes the flood to be, although devastating, not global (some of this can be inferred from the text itself… Inconsistencies in the account about the mountaintops being seen while the dove finds no rest for the sole of her foot… She brings back an olive branch).
I’m not sure about the 8 sole survivors since that seems to describe some level of incest, and not a huge amount of time given to repopulate.
As for the total destruction of humanity, it’s indeed a very difficultly topic. I believe some have pointed out, that according to Genesis he spent 100-120 years building the ark on dry land. That’s quite a big witness, for a lengthy period of time, for the people to repent. Not too mention quite a huge boat that would fit lots of people.
A lot of NT Scholars bring out the similarities between Noah’s situation and that of Jesus. Both preach to the ungodly about repenting lest they experience doom. Both give a large time for those of them to turn from their ways.
But of course, there’s still the high chance of children and babies that could get wiped out by the flood — in Genesis 19 there’s an interesting “debate” Abraham has with God about Him being righteous in his judgement. “will not the judge of all the earth deal righteously and not kill the righteous with the wicked” — it’s a very interesting and powerful chapter I recommend reading.
I think, however, despite such dramatic events such as the flood, people don’t see the “big picture”… God created everyone on this planet, and is all powerful… Over thousands of years he is indirectly responsible for billions of deaths… But many don’t think this way and concentrate on isolated events?
It all seems pretty drab and meaningless… But then Jesus came along and changed things. He (as God incarnate) dwelt amongst us as lowly humans. He was tempted like we are, yet resisted. He died on the cross as penalty for our sins… Then rose again showing us our true potential. He didn’t have to do it… But he did it anyway.
I know if you’re a non-Christian this probably won’t have much affect on you… But it’s the single most important message in the whole Bible — and for believers, the entire world. We probably won’t totally understand all the great mysteries of the Bibles in our lifetimes… But as a Christian we can’t misunderstand the gospel of Jesus Christ. All other doctrinal disputes pail in comparison.
That’s all I have for now, my friend — best wishes
Timothy
1 Like
Isn’t the total destruction of humanity the main subject of the story? How do you get around that? As a moral person living in 2015 America, how could someone justify retelling of this story and somehow justifying or even glorifying such actions even by a diety, a loving and moral one?
You mentioned Abraham, I cringed when I heard that Abraham-Issac story when I was a little boy. How could Abraham even consider doing that to his son? As a little boy, I couldn’t image my father doing that to me. As a father now, I would never tell that story to my children (or even let someone else tell it to them), it is frightening to a child, and could be considered child abuse telling them stories like that.
1 Like
I don’t believe I’ve necessarily “glorified” the story… Maybe justified but I don’t know what you mean by “glory”?
The focal point is the destruction of humanity based on the continual wickedness and violence of man… The picture being painted isn’t people singing carols while throwing flowers in the air. It’s murder and violence.
God never destroys places, people groups, etc. In it’s entirety. There’s alway a remnant that gets saved. God never change his initial plans of bringing a messiah into the world, because Noah was saved.
In the case of Ninevah, Jonah preached to the wicked town and all the people repented. They weren’t cast down. This isn’t the picture you see in Noah. There is no repentance.
You may think my viewpoint is radical, but if God truly did create all of humanity, then at the end of the day, he has the right to do what he wishes with his creation. God doesn’t “owe us” anything, because he didn’t have to create us. It’s by his grace and mercy that we get to have relationship with Him.
In my opinion the Abraham-Isaac ordeal is more horrifying than the Flood. According to Rabbi David Wolpe the Binding of Isaac is one of the most intensely debated stories, by Jews, in all the Bible.
Obviously the sacrifice never actually took place because the angel put a stop to it. However that doesn’t detract from the fact Abraham was still intending on doing it. I agree that it seems more appropriate for more mature audiences.
In your own words could you perhaps describe how one can have a loving God who grants humans free-will, to choose wrong or right, and yet not have the qualities of justice, mercy and forgiveness? If there is good and evil in the world then I’m not sure how one cannot have the concept of justice, too?
If God created everything and just “walked away” that would not be a God intimately involved with his Creation. That would be a deistic God or a stoic one.
-Tim
Peter Enns wrote an excellent children’s Bible curriculum called Telling God’s Story (or at least he started it and mapped out the direction, I think Rachel Marie Stone took over the writing in the third book.) Anyway, he says pretty much the exact same thing. The Old Testament stories are not “children’s stories,” and it requires a certain amount of social and intellectual maturity to understand them in their cultural context and take away the appropriate takeaways.
I work with an indigenous people group. Part of our job is to work with local writers to document local legends, folk tales, and oral histories. Most of the stories we are told don’t make much sense to us as cultural outsiders. Sometimes, the “morals” that are obvious to the insiders have to be spelled out and explained a few times for us to even have a clue. Many times they come out sounding very violent or depressing to our ears. There is a whole body of cultural knowledge and pragmatic conventions that any cultural narrative constantly makes reference to, and the less common ground the hearers have with the original composers of the text, the more of the intended meaning gets lots.
So I try to keep that in mind when I read the Old Testament. If Jesus was God made visible and relatable, then that is the ultimate revelation of God’s true character. Where it seems obvious to me that an Old Testament story portrays something contrary to the nature that Jesus reveals, I assume I am misunderstanding something because of my cultural distance from and lack of common ground with the text.
I don’t see the focus of the Noah narrative as being genocide any more than the focus of Cinderella is sadistic child abuse. I think it is about God providing a way of salvation, and it’s intended to foreshadow the themes of chosen-ness and redemption that are important to the Jewish identity and important for understanding of the Messiah’s mission on earth.
1 Like
Just wanted to mention a further point.
You said: a child hearing that story today is given the message that you do whatever God commands no matter how innately morally wrong it is.
To which command are you referring too? Noah building an ark for him and his family? How is that morally wrong?
You can debate about God’s justice, but what does that have to do with Noah following immoral commands?
There are many things on this planet, and amongst humanity, that are frightening and indeed terrifying. Perhaps an atomic bomb exploding in our city may be enough to cause absolute fear to all of us - and such an evil act is done by human beings. The notion atheists constantly bring up, is that God is the source of such evil, and in a childish way, declare they will refuse to believe is such a god.
If we accept the obvious fact, that much of the evil we observe is directly attributed to human acts, is it unreasonable to insist the atheist conforms to his own reasoning, and that he should either think there is no humanity he can believe in, or there is no morality humans can practice?
Everyone has the burden that our own evil acts place on us. Decency and an adult outlook (indeed our own sanity) would force us to accept responsibility for such acts - only then can we start to think of avoiding evil and seeking the good. The banal insistence from atheists, that pass the blame elsewhere undercuts the impulse for responsible moral acts.
Theologically (briefly) God accepted the difficulties we humans face, lived amongst us, and yet without any act that would bring blame to him, was put to death - this death of an innocent man was an act by human beings who knew they were acting in an evil manner. Of all the terrors we can face, the deliberate and premeditated murder of any innocent, is a terrifying act. God understood all of this, accepted the fact that He created us, and provided a means for forgiveness of such sins - it is a sublime truth that we as humans should regret our evil, and seek earnestly to do the good for ourselves and our fellow human beings. This is from God and is offered as an act of Grace. It is extraordinary that atheists should seek any and every opportunity to negate and contradict this central tenet of the Christian faith.
Tim,
We live in a post-911 world. A world where ISIL use atrocities and social media to market a warped ideology. This ideology resonates with disenchanted young men around the world. In the predominately Christian Western world we can’t fathom how anyone can believe that committing atrocities in the name of God can ever be justify. It is morally reprehensible to us. It is basic to our evolved human morality. That is the context that I speak in. I live in 2015 America. My morality is shaped more by the events in the 2000’s than events 4000 years ago. My concern is much broader than how traditional western Christianity looks at things. So looking at the Noah story as a 21st century American, I would have to conclude that Noah and his family were willing accomplishes to the largest genocide in history. God revealed his plan to him and instead of telling the authorities, Noah work his whole life to save himself and his family. In my book, (and with my 2015 morality), Noah was not a righteous man but a coward, someone not to be emulated, nor praised, nor glorified as a righteous man. Why does this matter in the 21st century and why do I think that this story shouldn’t be told to children?
Because let say today, a young man says that he committed to God and willing to do anything that God commands him to do. He becomes a target for manipulation. I believe that some unscrupulous person can get him to do anything including flying airplanes into buildings. But you might say that it can’t happen to good Christians. History says otherwise. (priest scandal, abortion clinic bombings). I say this not to denigrate your Faith and beliefs but instead to say that your Faith may have moral responsibilities that might supersede your Faith.
Again looking at this story using 2015 morality, I can’t image the psychological trauma that Isaac endured. He probable had nightmares his entire life. He certainly looked at his father differently after this ordeal. Abraham was totally unfit to ever be near his son again. Again, in 2015 morality, Abraham should have been arrested for the most egregious form of child endangerment ever perpetrated in history. Isaac’s mother should never have left Isaac with this man. And if she knew of this event, and did nothing she is unfit to care for the child. Again, not a story to tell to today’s children.
Patrick, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to be perfectly blunt with you. You’re completely distorting the message of Noah. Noah as an accomplice to genocide? Noah should have reported it to the authorities? What authorities…? To whom could Noah talk to prevent a flood that wasn’t gonna happen for 100 years? The story is about REPENTANCE. Not about killing people to gain 72 virgins in heaven.
So a couple crazy Islamic terrorists crash into a building and all the sudden we have to completely reevaluate the entire Christian religion??
(Which by the way, jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel beams… But that’s a different topic)
Are you not aware of World War I, World War II, the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot? None of these people were religious… Are we gonna now reevaluate Atheism?
To say we should “rethink” Christianity because of what Islamic terrorists did is like saying we should “rethink” atheism because of 20th century dictators. You’re making this an issue of “the evils of religion”… When it’s just flat out HUMAN evil. Pure and simple
Where did I ever say “good Christians” will never do this? It does not matter whether you’re an atheist or believer, to be a morally good person. That is not what Christianity teaches. We are ALL bad people… The only difference is the repentant and unrepentant, and yet somehow you’re trying to make the story of Noah akin to Jihadists…
Why are you putting 9-11 into this special category, as if this is the first time in history we’ve seen human evil on a major scale?
I never said the Abraham-Isaac story should be considered a children’s story. It’s not.
If the story literally took place then no doubt Isaac would extremely traumatized. There is no recording of them ever communicating again.
There are multiple messages in this story:
-
God shows Abraham that this is NOT what God condones. Unlike Abrahams neighbors that worship Molech and sacrifice their children in the fire.
-
It was a test of Abrahams obedience. Yes a VERY gruesome test… But it does the job of getting your attention.
-
Most importantly this foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Their could be other meanings, but like Christy says, we are far removed from the time culture of when it was written.
I believe that Cinderella was sadistic child abuse. If Cinderella lived next door to you with her step mother and her two sisters, wouldn’t you do everything to help the poor girl? If you felt that the abuse was too severe, wouldn’t you notify the child protection authorizes? I would.
We have to be careful taking stories from the past and puffing them up to mean something in today’s world. A child today can get totally different meaning out what the story actually is saying. We try to protect them from harm but we may not be preparing them well enough for the real harsh world out there.
Tim,
I guess it is a good time to requote this now famous Dawkin’s quote:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Of course, but that’s not the point. The point is when Hans Christian Anderson first told the tale, people weren’t distracted by the stepmother. It wasn’t the focus of the story and people probably wouldn’t have characterized her as a sadistic child abuser. She fit some acceptable trope of the culture. The original Little Mermaid is even more violent and disturbing. The fact that many fairy tables strike a modern audience as disturbing when they were probably not disturbing in their time is my point. We can characterize the listeners from bygone days who didn’t bat an eye at telling a children a story about a girl who gets her tongue cut out and suffers as if every step is walking on knives and leaving a trail of blood, all to get a boy to like her as a backwards and immoral people, but we don’t know that. Maybe they just had different conventions for story-telling than we are accustomed to.
Same with the Noah narrative. I seriously doubt any of the original audience would walk away thinking the story was primarily about genocide or question the character of God for causing it. Not because they were twisted people, but because they had a different frame of reference than we do now. They probably wouldn’t be able to make much sense out of Ender’s Game.
Ironically, that quote is on the very first page of the book I recommended to you: Did God Really Command Genocide?
I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. I don’t take much stalk in what Dawkins says (he’s considered to be a radical even in the atheist circles). He has an obvious vehement hatred for religion… It’s nothing new.
He’s an evolutionary biologist, not an Old Testament scholar, thus he is making a bold assertion outside his field of expertise. Scientists don’t like Christians making claims about science when it’s outside their field of expertise… But Dawkins feels he can? That’s intellectually dishonest.
Your comment didn’t have anything to do with my question: why do you put 9-11 as a poster boy for “the evils of religion” yet do not do the same for Adolf Hitler or Stalin, for atheism? It’s one-sided.
I like what you say here Christy.
It’s important to know that every story has “conflict” and “resolution”. The story of Cinderella has conflict: she lives with an abusive stepmother. But that is not the point of the story. The POINT is that despite her difficult circumstances she remains positive and eventually finds a prince. Hence it’s a story of perseverance and happy endings. It’s a fairystory.
Patrick, you characterize the story of Noah in a similar fashion. There’s conflict: there was great violence in the earth, every thought of man was only evil continually. However you focus is on Gods ulterior motives, when he plainly tells you his motives in the story. There was great violence in the earth and much wickedness. I’m going to restart with Noah.
You miss the elements of this story that’s about renewal and rebirth. God says I will no longer curse the ground for mans sake, for man is evil from his youth. Beforehand Man did something bad and God cursed the ground for it… But now he’s going to get at the root of the matter. The heart. The cursing before was just external causes.
Because I lost a friend who work on the 86th floor of Tower 1.