Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
You can't claim that the story imparts some sort of lesson if you cannot even articulate what that lesson is.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
.... the story.
Well, the bottom line is that we just don't know. We only have a limited amount of knowledge while God does not. Obviously the Creator of the universe knows alot more than we do so he can make a correct decision regarding the choice to destroy the entire planet. We can't. I think you're forgetting that you're talking about the Creator of the universe here, not a human being.
Just a small point: there's a difference between "reading" and "studying." Have you ever studied the Flood narrative, in detail?
That's a great theological question which I've started threads on before. Just FYI, God also repents he made Saul king over Israel in 1 Sam. 15. I think the reason is because God won't reward someone in the present for the way he knows they're going to be in the future. In other words, God will act toward someone in the present the way they are in the present. He doesn't punish people for future evils in the present.
If that's the case (and I believe it is), then an omniscient God could be sorry he ever made man, since he acts toward people in the present like they are in the present, not like how they'll be in the future. I think that answers the question.
God uses water both because of its purging powers and because it represents him and hence his judgment.
You can't claim that the story imparts some sort of lesson if you cannot even articulate what that lesson is.
Yes you can.
Unless you think teaching is about transmission of data.
Your question assumes that the lesson can be articulated as a propositional statement. If that were the case, story would likely not be the best way to teach it.What's the lesson?
Your question assumes that the lesson can be articulated as a propositional statement. If that were the case, story would likely not be the best way to teach it.
A famous dance once said "if it could be explained in words, I wouldn't need to dance it".
Places where story isn't the only or optimal choice.That's not necessarily the case. We tell stories to impart lessons that could be expressed in other ways all the time.
Because then whole point is to learn the lesson from the story, not from an attempted abstraction.You are positing a story with a lesson but won't give us any idea of what the supposed lesson is in relation to the OP's question.
Obviously the dancer disagreed.The main themes and manoeuvres can still be described. You won't even do that much.
Places where story isn't the only or optimal choice.
Because then whole point is to learn the lesson from the story, not from an attempted abstraction.
Obviously the dancer disagreed.
See the dance analogy. The whole point is that the only proper way of expressing it is in story. Well, maybe you could use dance - but I'm not a dance person.Learn what from the story?
See the dance analogy. The whole point is that the only proper way of expressing it is in story.
Not everything worth learning can be expressed as an abstract statement.
You'll have to learn it from the story to find out,
just as you'd have to watch the dancers dance to find out what that's about.
You can discuss all sorts of things about her dance.I've given you my idea of what the lesson is already. You didn't agree, so obviously you think the lesson is something else.
We can describe a dance in various ways: "graceful," "delicate," "rigid," "stirring," etc. We can talk about it, exchange ideas, offer points for improvement, and so on. Thus far, you have done nothing like that for this story. You insist it contains some sort of lesson, but the lesson is apparently so obscure that it evades characterisation altogether. As such, your supposed lesson is indistinguishable from no lesson at all.
You can discuss all sorts of things about her dance.
But to find out what it means you have to get that from the dance.
We could talk about all sorts of things about the Noah story - say it's curious parallel sections, or note the points where it's similar to other stories. Even discuss the question it's addressing But to find out its answer - you'll have to get that from the story itself. And, like the meaning of the dance, if you can put it adequately into a propositional form you haven't yet got it. And maybe you won't ever get it - some lessons we never do.
No, no more than any other weird political group. Which is what ISIS is. It's not religious, it's political.
Do you always take a group's claims at face value? What about actual analysis? It's simplistic to say that ISIS does what they do because they are Muslims. Most Muslims around the world don't approve of ISIS' behavior. Are you saying they are less Muslim for not approving of ISIS?
To deny that these guys get their political motivations/inspiration from their religion is a serious case of head-in-sand.
A thumb is a finger, but not all fingers are thumbs.
However, a thumb wouldn't be a thumb if it wasn't a finger!!
Your reasoning implies that if these guys would stop being muslim, they'ld still be doing the exact same thing.
Obviously, that is not true.
ISIS: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Remove the religion from that group, and the entire group evaporates.
Their inspiration and motivation clearly comes from their religion. It's a version that's not held by the majority of muslims, that is true. But it's islamic based nonetheless.
In the exact same way as the Spanish Inquisition found its motivation and inspiration in fundamentalist Christianity.
Is it the root cause? Obviously not, because then a majority of muslims would be like that. But to deny the obvious important part it plays is, again, a serious case of head-in-sand.
Clearly they do what they do because they believe that it is what they are supposed to do. And the reason they believe that, is because of the religious doctrine they hold on to.
That the story is an answer to the question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?