[jrb4him]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Because such a statement would be absurd. The Biblical flood story is not just vaguely similar to Atrahasis and Gilgamesh—it has many of the same details (a roofed ark, sealed with pitch, letting the birds out of the windows to find land, a great sacrifice to the gods afterwords).

Also consider the fact that the flood, as described in all these myths, is physically impossible and clearly describes a flat earth. Add in the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support any such story and it's clear that the only reason anyone would think there really was a Biblical flood is if they presupposed the truth of the Bible—which is not a position public schools should teach.


Many tribal groups are fine with vengeance killing and rape. I guess that means those beliefs are "normal" too, by your logic.

If only 8 people survived the flood and everyone was descendants of them...it doesn't come as a surprise that they are very similar...does it?

Flat Earth? No Evidence?...it's a shame this isn't the right thread to discuss...
You just said that Giglamesh is a story outside of the Bible, that is almost exactly the same, therefore saying that the only way to teach a Global flood is only by the Bible, is contradictory.


As far as the tribal groups...i see what your trying to say about my logic. However, the fact these people can all agree that there is some sort of God kind of makes atheism look like a very "unreputable" theory. The fact that a few groups try to cloud their conscience by making it culturally accepted doesn't make it right....did anyone ask the women if they think its okay?? Anyways this is now getting off topic...


Jason

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by jrb4him

If only 8 people survived the flood and everyone was descendants of them...it doesn't come as a surprise that they are very similar...does it?

It certainly comes as a surprise that the Bible gets the name wrong. The earlier myth identifies the survivor as one Atrahasis, friend of Ea Enki.

Flat Earth? No Evidence?...it's a shame this isn't the right thread to discuss...

Shame indeed. I'd love to hear how you plan on showing evidence of a worldwide flood.

You just said that Giglamesh is a story outside of the Bible, that is almost exactly the same, therefore saying that the only way to teach a Global flood is only by the Bible, is contradictory.

Huh? I don't think we should be teaching kids that ancient Mesopotamian myths (including Genesis) are true.

Do you think we should teach kids that the gods made men out of clay to be their slaves? Lots of Mesopotamian myths agree that that's what happened, so it must be true.

As far as the tribal groups...i see what your trying to say about my logic. However, the fact these people can all agree that there is some sort of God kind of makes atheism look like a very "unreputable" theory.

Does the fact that they agree about rape and murder make these behaviors seem reputable?

The fact that a few groups try to cloud their conscience by making it culturally accepted doesn't make it right....did anyone ask the women if they think its okay??

I'm surprised you are against rape. There are no commandments against rape in the Bible, and God lets you take virgin girls as "booty" from wars and have sex with them.

Yet another example of why the views of barbaric pre-modern tribes (in this case, the Hebrews) should not dictate our morals or beliefs today.

[adamwagg]

Hey again everyone.

World wide flood is so off-topic I'll delete anymore posts about it.

I've been impressed how everyone stayed on topic in this thread but please continue to do so.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by adamwagg

Hey again everyone.

World wide flood is so off-topic I'll delete anymore posts about it.

I've been impressed how everyone stayed on topic in this thread but please continue to do so.

I'm sorry. And after thinking about what the last poster said, I think I might even see where Christians are coming from about the flood.

[JerryLove]

If the flood was worldwide its not surprising that different cultures would have something to say about it, so why couldn't you make the statement that if multiple cultures say something about it, maybe there is some truth to it. Rather than take the stance that it must mean the bible is "copied".

So then you agree that teaching about the similarities in the stories is not a bias?

Also an interesting point a missionary brought up in church today. They have yet to find a tribal group that is atheist. Atheism seems to be out of the normal when it comes to teaching about accepted ideas.

It is interesting, but it's just as irrellevent as the complete lack of Christians in tribal groups (until conversion). It's also more untrue (atheism is recorded in several unconnected places; it has never been predominant).

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Notice for example that you assume similarites mean copies. It would be just as easy to assume that similarities prove the event to be real. An honest telling wouldn't assume either.

I didn't make that assumption..? Either I'm unable to get your meaning here, or you need to reread my post.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Of course they can. The question at hand is "who is least likely to spin the facts"

There's nothing but spin.

[tlj009]

You assume something that's not true.. that in a discussion of something I consider fictional (Lord of the Rings) I discuss its fictionalness. I don't.

I didn't say that you discuss its fictionalness. I said that your teaching would be from the perspective that it is fiction.

I didn't argue that. I argued that the flood of Noah is similar to the flood of Gilgamesh. Your reading of my posts is far from neutral.

Let's go back and see what happened. We were discussing literature that influenced the Bible, thereby implying that the Bible isn't true. I then said that I didn't believe the biblical flood was based on the Babylonian flood. That is when you asked about the similarities with the flood of Giglamesh. Is it so difficult to see how I could read in that you were arguing that the biblical flood was based off of the flood of Giglamesh?

Or they could just discuss the similarietes and differences without pushing a conclusion as to what those mean.

Notice for example that you assume similarites mean copies. It would be just as easy to assume that similarities prove the event to be real. An honest telling wouldn't assume either.

An honest telling perhaps. But as with this conversation, your own feelings get involved. If you discuss it as if it influenced the bible, as with our conversation, then that is what the class will get out of it.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I didn't make that assumption..? Either I'm unable to get your meaning here, or you need to reread my post.

It's very evil of you to illicit a response that requires this mcuh recapping.

TLJ#91: "atheists see the Bible as a work of literature"
Me#92: "Are you asserting that the Bible is not literature?"
TLJ#97: " If you portray the Bible as a work of literature, influenced by various religions/stories of the time, you are attacking Christianity."
Me#98: "So you don't believe that the Bible is influenced by the writers at all?"
TLJ#99: "I don't believe the biblical flood is based off of the babylonian flood."
ME#100: " you believe it's extremely similar to the written-down-earlier story of the Flood of Gilgamesh?"
TLJ#101: "the point is clear. You can not resist making an argument that the Bible is fiction. That just means that you are not neutral."

You then asserted three options:
1) Use the similarities to prove they were human-created.
2) Apologize the similarities away by discussing differences.
3) Ignore the whole thing

Yes, I responded a good bit to TLJ's assertions when I responded to your response to me. It's perhaps incorrect but understandable of me I think.

There's nothing but spin.

In order for that claim to be true it, itself, must be spin.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's very evil of you to illicit a response that requires this mcuh recapping.

TLJ#91: "atheists see the Bible as a work of literature"
Me#92: "Are you asserting that the Bible is not literature?"
TLJ#97: " If you portray the Bible as a work of literature, influenced by various religions/stories of the time, you are attacking Christianity."
Me#98: "So you don't believe that the Bible is influenced by the writers at all?"
TLJ#99: "I don't believe the biblical flood is based off of the babylonian flood."
ME#100: " you believe it's extremely similar to the written-down-earlier story of the Flood of Gilgamesh?"
TLJ#101: "the point is clear. You can not resist making an argument that the Bible is fiction. That just means that you are not neutral."

You then asserted three options:
1) Use the similarities to prove they were human-created.
2) Apologize the similarities away by discussing differences.
3) Ignore the whole thing

Yes, I responded a good bit to TLJ's assertions when I responded to your response to me. It's perhaps incorrect but understandable of me I think.

I said "the implication being..." As I argued previously, you can't possibly push "just the facts" with no interpretation because which "facts" you choose to present, the order/context in which you present them, and the language you use in reference to them will have "built-in" interpretive implications.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In order for that claim to be true it, itself, must be spin.

Exactly: There's nothing but spin.

[jengoesup]

I know the discussion has gone in places other than the thread topic but...I just sat in on a comparative religions class at a college I was checking out today, and my experience is relevant.

The teacher was this Indian guy (not that that's important), and he was talking about the beginnings of Christianity. Now maybe I'm just sensitive. But when he started talking about the importance of the Resurrection, he mentioned that people debated whether or not it really happened, and then he mentioned briefly in list format all of the objections/possible secular explanations for the Resurrection (Jesus was only spiritually resurrected; someone stole his body; he was never crucified; etcetera). And then he talks about how some Muslim scholar says that people can just imagine whatever they want and have visions if they want. Then he says so, all of Jesus' disciples could have been totally fooled because they really wanted to see Jesus. And then he just leaves it at that. Now it wouldn't have been so bad if the students had already read the story of the Resurrection and how Jesus interacted with all of the disciples (with multiple disciples witnessing him in a room at the same time; so that rules out the creative visions theory); but the professor talked as if the students hadn't ("Now if you don't know the story of the Resurrection, well here's how it goes...).

I also did not appreciate the random way in which he pulled out the main doctrines of Christianity as outlined by Paul. I mean first he says, Paul determines most of Christian theology. I'll give him credit in that the teacher said Paul was an exceptionally learned Jewish scholar who knew a boatload about Jewish theology. But when the guy just pulled things out of thin air and didn't give any sort of Scriptural support...I mean, he could at least refer to those verses, instead of just saying "Well Paul made them up". It would be OK if I knew the guy was going to delve into theology a little more deeply, but it sounds like he's just taking a cursory look at Christianity. I mean mostly it wasn't bad, but I feel like he left out significant points. I'll concede that it's difficult to know what to put in and what to leave out if you want to keep the class as unbiased as possible. Also, I did not know his class syllabus, so it is possible he will go back to things like grace and faith in Christ as means of salvation (although he's already jumping to the Trinity doctrine next class period so who knows, and I can't confirm, but I think he said that next week they're tackling Islam). However, in isolating this one class I can already see where things could go wrong...I think all this professor needed was to show the students the Scripture where all of this occurs and assign some reading: have them read the Resurrection stories, have them read Acts 9, have them read Romans and other parts of Paul's letters. Unfortunately it was a survey religions course, so they didn't even have Bibles.

Oh, and then he made a crack about evangelical Christians, which was a little uncalled for. ("If an evangelical pulls up next to you and asks, 'are you born again?' you should probably run away").

Oh yeah, and then he sort of implies that born again is kind of some random phrase that evangelicals like to use. But to me it seems to come out of those verses in John. But oh wellz.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by jengoesup

I know the discussion has gone in places other than the thread topic but...I just sat in on a comparative religions class at a college I was checking out today, and my experience is relevant.

The teacher was this Indian guy (not that that's important), and he was talking about the beginnings of Christianity. Now maybe I'm just sensitive. But when he started talking about the importance of the Resurrection, he mentioned that people debated whether or not it really happened, and then he mentioned briefly in list format all of the objections/possible secular explanations for the Resurrection (Jesus was only spiritually resurrected; someone stole his body; he was never crucified; etcetera). And then he talks about how some Muslim scholar says that people can just imagine whatever they want and have visions if they want. Then he says so, all of Jesus' disciples could have been totally fooled because they really wanted to see Jesus. And then he just leaves it at that. Now it wouldn't have been so bad if the students had already read the story of the Resurrection and how Jesus interacted with all of the disciples (with multiple disciples witnessing him in a room at the same time; so that rules out the creative visions theory); but the professor talked as if the students hadn't ("Now if you don't know the story of the Resurrection, well here's how it goes...).

I also did not appreciate the random way in which he pulled out the main doctrines of Christianity as outlined by Paul. I mean first he says, Paul determines most of Christian theology. I'll give him credit in that the teacher said Paul was an exceptionally learned Jewish scholar who knew a boatload about Jewish theology. But when the guy just pulled things out of thin air and didn't give any sort of Scriptural support...I mean, he could at least refer to those verses, instead of just saying "Well Paul made them up". It would be OK if I knew the guy was going to delve into theology a little more deeply, but it sounds like he's just taking a cursory look at Christianity. I mean mostly it wasn't bad, but I feel like he left out significant points. I'll concede that it's difficult to know what to put in and what to leave out if you want to keep the class as unbiased as possible. Also, I did not know his class syllabus, so it is possible he will go back to things like grace and faith in Christ as means of salvation (although he's already jumping to the Trinity doctrine next class period so who knows, and I can't confirm, but I think he said that next week they're tackling Islam). However, in isolating this one class I can already see where things could go wrong...I think all this professor needed was to show the students the Scripture where all of this occurs and assign some reading: have them read the Resurrection stories, have them read Acts 9, have them read Romans and other parts of Paul's letters. Unfortunately it was a survey religions course, so they didn't even have Bibles.

Oh, and then he made a crack about evangelical Christians, which was a little uncalled for. ("If an evangelical pulls up next to you and asks, 'are you born again?' you should probably run away").

Oh yeah, and then he sort of implies that born again is kind of some random phrase that evangelicals like to use. But to me it seems to come out of those verses in John. But oh wellz.

I'm sure he would have gone into more detail later. Plus, when you're talking about Christianity in general, there's not much you can say because Christianity is split into so many different groups that hold all kinds of different beliefs. It would be necessary to study some of the main subsets of Christianity in detail, which probably would have been done later.

In my high school comparative religions class, we studied C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

As for the crack about evangelicals, I'm inclined to agree with him. No offense to anyone. But if an evangelical asks me if i'm born again, the first think i'm going to think is "it's really none of your business" and then i'm probably going to just say "yes, I was baptized when I was a 7" and then get away from them.

[Chrysostom]

Jen - Thanks for sharing your experience. I hope your college selection goes well!