Does God Exist?

[PaliRichard 10]

I have a different interpretation of Genesis, as a mythological story designed to teach the early readers of the Bible where they came from- a historical text if you like.

 

Who wrote the Bible and why did they write it:

The earliest Bible texts are believed to date to c.3500BC or the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age in the Near East. The Dead Sea scrolls were written between 408 BC and 318 AD, which suggests that there was still no finalised version of the Old Testament at this time- it was still a work in progress. Sometime in the 4th century AD the Christian heads of church decided to create the Old Testament from 4 of the many gospels available and chose the gospels that most represented their Christian view of the world.

The Bible texts were written so that the stories within them could be preached to illiterate peoples. The stories in them were designed to unify a disparate group of mountain tribes people- to give them a sense of shared ancestry and culture so that they would unite to fight against the Persians who were constantly invading from the north. They did this by creating a single God that would usurp all others

 

What does Genesis represent?

Genesis begins with a creation myth. The Neolithic Canaanites didn't know how the earth was created so they basically reshuffled an earlier Mesopotamian/ Sumerian creation myth to fit the story of their new god. Rather than 7 families of gods creating the universe, this new god created the universe in 7 days.

 

Adam and Eve represent all Mesolithic hunter gatherers of the Near East. This early way of life had been remembered in the oral histories of people. The notion of Paradise, or 'fertile enclosure' (now called the Garden of Eden) represented the territorial areas that the Mesolithic people inhabited. However, Eve (woman) gained knowledge of edible plants and trees and began to domesticate them. (The Neolithic revolution or early farming began in the fertile crescent of the Near East about 8000BC).

 

Early farming completely altered the lives of the people at the time. They had to learn to live in one place rather than move with the seasons, it altered their diet, their social and ritual routines (all developed over the previous 250,000 years) and they had to learn how to store the produce that they harvested to last through the winter. Early crops, and later animals were wild varieties and not easy to farm and there would have been many devastating failures. It led to uncertain, often difficult times and this is represented in the Bible story. However, once established, farming did offer a better diet and more food security than hunting and gathering.

 

This for me, is the only real interpretation of Genesis. A mythology based upon actual history. An account, for the time, of who these people were and where they came from mixed up with a political notion of a god designed to unite some very disparate tribes for their own defence. An invention of a shared past.

 

May I point out that my post was not about my interpretation of Genesis, it was merely using the text itself to argue against the doctrine of original sin which doesn't stand up when you look at the text in context.

 

From the little I understand of the archaeology surrounding the Biblical documents I would tend to agree largely with your post. The only bit I'm not sure of is

a god designed to unite some very disparate tribes for their own defence[/Quote]

 

design to me implies a conscious effort to mould, I think it is more likely a God that evolved as time went on through the amalgamation of El and YHWH to represent the world views of the two tribes they represented.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 11:18 ----------

 

Now just who are the "world elite"?

Pope Francis? Prince William? George W Bush? the president of the World Bank?

Of which member of the elite am I a minion, putting his doctrine on the Internet?

Without some details, this is as ludicrous as the statement that "fanatical Moslems plan to kill all jews and christians"; if someone said that, you would be justified in saying "Who are they?" and perhaps denying association with them.

 

I think getting a response from that particular poster may be difficult, the problem he seems to have is that he has heard various 'scholars' making claims and taken them as, well gospel. The difficulty with this position (and many of my Muslim friends are the same - so it's not an attack on the poster as a person) is that when it comes up in debate they haven't really gone beyond the words of the scholar when it comes to investigation so they get stuck, in my experience this usually leads to them leaving a debate without answering the criticisms out forward to them.

 

The ironic thing of course is that many of these Muslims criticise Christians for exactly the same thing. I've said it before and I'll probably keep saying it until I'm blue in the face. I don't understand why the religious can't acknowledge the flaws in their systems - it seems to me to be nothing more than a lack of faith that they will not acknowledge.

 

They don't seem to understand that you can still have faith while not having all the answers - there's nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know', or 'I acknowledge that may be a difficulty' - I do it with my faith, and one of the reasons I respect Janie48 so much is that she does it with hers. It's not a weakness of faith to look at it with open eyes and recognise the problems inherent in the system.

[Lockjaw 11]

They don't seem to understand that you can still have faith while not having all the answers - there's nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know', or 'I acknowledge that may be a difficulty' - I do it with my faith, and one of the reasons I respect Janie48 so much is that she does it with hers. It's not a weakness of faith to look at it with open eyes and recognise the problems inherent in the system.

 

That's fascinating because I hold the exact opposite position (not with regard to respecting Janie, I hasten to add).

 

I agree that "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer - to any question- but I find it completely unfathomable how people can maintain their faith (in the existence of deities) when faced with the contradictions and total nonsense which inevitably arise.

 

Having said that, I find the responses (or lack of) they produce to deal with these contradictions and illogicalities to be an ongoing confirmation of basic psychology theses.

 

All the above is, as usual, just my opinion and not intended to cause offence to any individuals.

[PaliRichard 10]

That's fascinating because I hold the exact opposite position (not with regard to respecting Janie, I hasten to add).

 

I agree that "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer - to any question- but I find it completely unfathomable how people can maintain their faith (in the existence of deities) when faced with the contradictions and total nonsense which inevitably arise.

 

Having said that, I find the responses (or lack of) they produce to deal with these contradictions and illogicalities to be an ongoing confirmation of basic psychology theses.

 

All the above is, as usual, just my opinion and not intended to cause offence to any individuals.

 

The bold bit.

 

I agree, I don't understand this either, but I maintain that I respect 'I don't know' far more than 'I have proof' then running away when asked to quantify that proof.

 

'I don't know', and 'I acknowledge that difficulty' are far more honest answers than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Science contradicts some of my religion, I have to accept that, but the core element as a psychological philosophy, and practice, make a lot of sense to me. I'm not going to pretend the bits that don't make sense are true because of that, but by the same token I'm not going to abandon the bits that do work.

 

The advantage of my religion is that it doesn't claim to be 'the truth' as the Theistic ones do (in fact ultimately we are told all concepts of the 'religion' are not the truth), so from that perspective I don't have to make an excuse when difficulties arise for me, it is just something else to analyse.

[mikebatty 10]

I’ve used a similar argument in the past.

 

In which person A doesn’t believe in God but throughout his life works for charity, does nothing wrong, helps anyone he can when he can.

 

Person B as committed many crimes only ever helped themselves but turns to God in the last years of their life.

 

If heaven does exist which one goes to heaven?

I’ve never been given a straight answer.

 

You can use whatever argument you wish .

What right do you claim to decide who is right and who is wrong ?

How dare you question what someone else believes ?

What gives you the right to assume a superior knowledge or belief over anyone else ?

Why do you feel that you have to denigrate someone else's faith or belief in order to try and justify your own argument ?

Is it perhaps because you are looking for an answer to your own question ?

If so . Why don't you read the most popularly read book , close your mind to other comments and use your reasoning and understanding .

Quite illuminating when you shut out the garbage which doubters throw in to trip up .

Good reading !

[PaliRichard 10]

borderline

 

As you asked me

if it's just your own interpretation give evidence everyone can understand[/Quote]

 

and as I've done it.

 

And as I've responded to your post in full...

 

And as I've posted the questions you've been avoiding for a year I wondered if you'd have the courtesy of actually responding to any of it rather than just loitering around the board for a few days and then disappearing for a couple of months until you think the questions have gone away before popping up again.

[SnailyBoy 10]

You can use whatever argument you wish .

What right do you claim to decide who is right and who is wrong ?

How dare you question what someone else believes ?

What gives you the right to assume a superior knowledge or belief over anyone else ?

Why do you feel that you have to denigrate someone else's faith or belief in order to try and justify your own argument ?

Is it perhaps because you are looking for an answer to your own question ?

If so . Why don't you read the most popularly read book , close your mind to other comments and use your reasoning and understanding .

Quite illuminating when you shut out the garbage which doubters throw in to trip up .

Good reading !

 

Beliefs are not immune from question, especially when those beliefs bring so much damage to society

 

For example. the belief that condoms are bad. So countries that are riddled with Aids are told by the Catholic Church that condoms shouldn't be used.

 

The belief that if children are deemed to be witches they should be killed.

 

The belief that it's okay to move pedophile priests to other communities so they can continue to rape children.

 

Oh, I nearly forgot.

 

The belief that a woman has no right to say what happens to her own body. Highlighted in the recent case of the woman who bled to death because an Irish hospital wouldn't carry out an abortion when she was having a difficult miscarrage.

Edited May 10, 2013 by SnailyBoy

[PaliRichard 10]

You can use whatever argument you wish .

What right do you claim to decide who is right and who is wrong ?[/Quote]

 

I don't think he is saying who's right and wrong - like me he's pointing out the blatant flaw in the doctrine of original sin.

 

How dare you question what someone else believes ?[/Quote]

 

We're not, you may believe what you wish, he is referring to a post I made in response to your post #102 in which you claim

Christ died on the cross in order to fulfill the prophesy of the forgiveness of the original sin[/Quote]

 

Yours is one of many views of the Biblical text, I was making a point that the doctrine of original sin is on difficult ground because it doesn't sit with what is actually written in Genesis - it is misinterpretation (or corruption) from the early Christians. I'm not saying you can't believe what you want, I'm having a discussion, on a discussion forum, about a philosophical difficulty with the cornerstone of the Christian doctrine.

 

What gives you the right to assume a superior knowledge or belief over anyone else ?[/Quote]

 

Again I don't think he is (and if you knew my history with Mr S you'd know I don't defend him lightly) he's pointing out the difficulty of the position, that's not claiming a superior knowledge, it's looking at the evidence in context and having a discussion about it - an alternative position doesn't automatically assume a superior position, it's merely looking at the evidence.

 

Why do you feel that you have to denigrate someone else's faith or belief in order to try and justify your own argument ?[/Quote]

 

Again, no one is, we're talking about whether God exists or not and the doctrines and evidence that surrounds that proposition.

 

Is it perhaps because you are looking for an answer to your own question ?[/Quote]

 

For me - no, I can't speak for Maxsmithimus.

 

If so . Why don't you read the most popularly read book , close your mind to other comments and use your reasoning and understanding[/Quote]

 

I did, that's when I came across the discrepancy that's so blatant and yet has remained it seems virtually unchallenged throughout the history of Christianity.

 

Quite illuminating[/Quote]

 

I agree, some parts of the Bible are wonderful.

 

when you shut out the garbage which doubters throw in to trip up

Good reading !

 

Why have you spent most of this post criticising people for attacking your belief (when they haven't) and then describe other peoples opinions as garbage? Pot calling kettle?

 

I don't think your views are 'garbage', I think there is a perfectly good reason you hold them, but I also think they're based on a misinterpretation.

 

Before you have any more pot, kettle moments why don't you look at the text itself, in context, here it is:

 

Post #276

 

I would be interested on your thoughts on it, and also on any counter arguments to it that you may have.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 15:33 ----------

 

mikebatty

 

I'm just curious so don't take this the wrong way but do you have any intention in responding to my posts or are you going to do a borderline and claim this that and the other about God and when you're challenged skulk away and pretend you've not seen the post?

 

I sincerely hope you will take a look and respond, I'm genuinely interested in your take on the Genesis passage in relation to original sin.

[Guest]

Beliefs are not immune from question, especially when those beliefs bring so much damage to society

 

For example. the belief that condoms are bad. So countries that are riddled with Aids are told by the Catholic Church that condoms shouldn't be used.

 

The belief that if children are deemed to be witches they should be killed.

 

The belief that it's okay to move pedophile priests to other communities so they can continue to rape children.

 

Oh, I nearly forgot.

 

The belief that a woman has no right to say what happens to her own body. Highlighted in the recent case of the woman who bled to death because an Irish hospital wouldn't carry out an abortion when she was having a difficult miscarrage.

 

Still throwing logical fallacies around I see.

 

Red Herrings in this case.

 

Has nothing to do with the topic.

[PaliRichard 10]

Still throwing logical fallacies around I see.

 

Red Herrings in this case.

 

Has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Ah Fisky my old friend.

 

On a different thread I asked you some questions which you avoided, and avoided, and then claimed you didn't have much time and this was the reason you hadn't addressed them and you would do so in the future.

 

Well seen as you're back, and as it's a totally appropriate thread to repost the questions on would you mind answering these little gems for me?

 

1. Why does the explanation of multiple Gods have to be 'harder' or more complex than the explanation of one God?

 

2. Why does the explanation of one God with separate 'attributes' or personas like the Christian, or Hindu God have to be 'harder' or more complex than the explanation of one God?

 

3. Can you explain one God?[/Quote]

[SnailyBoy 10]

Still throwing logical fallacies around I see.

 

Red Herrings in this case.

 

Has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Beliefs have nothing to do with 'Does God Exist'?

 

How so?

[RootsBooster 24]

Still throwing logical fallacies around I see.

 

Red Herrings in this case.

 

Has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Can you explain how they are "logical fallacies" ?

[PaliRichard 10]

mikebatty

 

I hope your lack of response is due to your digesting the points I've put forward before composing a reply rather than the borderline esque trait of running away instead of addressing points that you can't answer instead of just acknowledging 'I don't know'.