Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:
I read it as a historical novel. You didnt read my post, for content: the supposed behaviour of said God

As for "believe it" what does that even mean? Serious question.

Well, the thing is that you CAN read it anyway you want BUT that doesn't make it THAT

It would be marvellously naive to suggest otherwise.

You must read the bible in the way it was intended to be read by those that wrote it.

One can attempt to do that.

The bible is a collection of books of different literary genres, you can't read the whole thing the same way.

Again naive to think otherwise.

And by believe I mean that I didn't think you believed that what was written to happen in the bible, actually happened

.

What is actually written? Samson actually needed long hair, Lots wife really turned to a pillar of salt, the tower of babel is a literal story.

How do you suppose ti was determined, btw, that the highest hills went under 15 cubits of water? Noah navigated to them, and took a sounding?

Or battles inwhich an even number of thousands were killed. That cant be literally true.
so by what percent is it off? Is it still what actually happened if it is off by 50%?

I doubt you think what is written is the bible is what actually happened either, we would merely vary by percents.

You must think our God is weak or something but he can perform miracles anytime he chooses to ,our God can speak and it happens,just imagine God creating this entire Universe and everything in it out of nothing and it would be quite easy to do the things you doubt when you read the bible and most of the time he won't perform miracles because of our faith in what he can do.It is us that restrict God,not him. Sometimes as Jesus would go to town to town there would be unbelief in certian towns so he would take them outside town and try to build up their faith first.Jesus did not just go around healing everybody it is and has always been our faith that moves God.It is our lack of faith that can restrict God from performing miracles.

The impression I get from your rather disconnected reply is that you did not understand anything I said.

Audie wrote:Earlier I said-

"The particular all loving god that Christians visualize is of course indistinguishable
from one that does not exist at all."

How does one distinguish a god who does not intervene no matter what awful thing
is happening from one that does not exist at all?

That is a real question.

B. W. wrote:I often wish that Audie and I could actually have a decent conversation. With me this is possible but alas with Audie not so much.

Audie, you mentioned the event that happened to you when you were five years old on another thread.

Ask yourself, how did that influence your thinking God cannot intervene?

Isaiah 61:1,2,3
-
-
-

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:I often wish that Audie and I could actually have a decent conversation. With me this is possible but alas with Audie not so much.

Audie, you mentioned the event that happened to you when you were five years old on another thread.

Ask yourself, how did that influence your thinking God cannot intervene?

Isaiah 61:1,2,3
-
-
-

You possibly would be surprised. I dont think either gave the
other a fair chance.

Partly because you may miss what I am actually saying.

Shared experience with sexual assault. I was 22, Story 17.
That is the 5 yrs.

No influence at all on how I perceive the idea of a god.
Not then, not now.

It never occurred to nor does it now to think a god cant intervene should
it care to. Kind of a nonsensical idea.

My q. was to the effect that a non-existent god does nothing
to intervene, an all loving compassionate god does nothing.

How is one to detect a difference?

Audie wrote:I appreciate your concern, Sir V. Of The Thousand Isles, but while I feel that
being quiet about it lets my tormentor win, there are aspects of that shattering
experience that are mine alone.

Of course it changed me profoundly. Who could say about what did not hapoen.

Vergil wrote:

Audie wrote:I appreciate your concern, Sir V. Of The Thousand Isles, but while I feel that
being quiet about it lets my tormentor win, there are aspects of that shattering
experience that are mine alone.

Of course it changed me profoundly. Who could say about what did not hapoen.

Then Milady there is a lesson to be learned from it, every evil in this world has a reckoning for that is Providence.
You Milady should be and shall strong, don't let this fool of a man torment you, no , let him be the reason why you have risen up and have become a Great Woman, use that experience as both Lesson meant to be learned from and as Conviction to never let it happen again.

That is what God wants, for Humanity to learn.

Please don't waste your beauty hiding from a creature that is way lower from your stature, believe in yourself and in Him then you will be free.

Not to get fooloshly technical, but you know good and well that having the highest hill
under 15 cubits of water , whether interpreted to mean Everest at present height, "flood"
height b4 it shot up, or some middle eastern hill, it is just a way of telling a story.
Going under by 15 cubits did not happen.

That plain statement in the bible is not true.

My take is that a thinking person will see that however read,
the bible is not affected; It is by varying amounts stating things
that are not accurate.

Personally, I think I read it with more real respect and understanding, seeing it as
a historical novel full of magic realism,than
is the case with those who read it as being about an actual god.

Audie wrote:Sheesh, like I never took an English lit class. This is not high art.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:Sheesh, like I never took an English lit class. This is not high art.

Actually, biblical interpretation IS a high art.
It takes lots of study to understand the literary genres in the bible.
It was a huge chunk of my masters in theological studies AND it barely scratched the surface.

See, we use many of the same literary device even now.
"No stone was left unturned..."
" The city was totally devastated after the earthquake..."
" He was 6ft under water..."

So, if there was a stone unturned or some of the city was not devastated or we find out that the writer had no way to measure that he was 6ft under, should we complete disregard what was written?

Of course not.

ANE storytelling, be if factual or not, being it historical or not, was based on the one simples fact of being addressed to a SPECIFIC audience at a SPECIFIC time.

There is no high art to the below kind of understanding, which someone seemed to claim I lack