ISIS and God

[variant]

Eh?

I am suggesting that, if read as such, the Noah story gives a very clear narrative answer to the question "why doesn't God just wipe out evil".

That wasn't the question, it was a question of why God doesn't intervene to curve or destroy a specific evil.

I suspect your problem is that you don't want a narrative answer. You want a propositional answer, or at least a narrative that can be translated into a propositional answer as though narrative were second best. I suggest that narrative is, in fact, the better form for addressing such questions, as most human cultures have thought, and that translating them makes about as much sense as trying to turn the instructions for safely running a nuclear power-station into fairy-tale.

My problem is that the bible gives hundreds of "narrative answers" about how God might deal with various evil armies and or people, they just don't answer the question of why this one doesn't make the list.

 

[ebia]

That wasn't the question, it was a question of why God doesn't intervene to curve or destroy a specific evil.

God's interventions are strictly limited. Given an answer to why God doesn't do so generally, the onus is very much on "why this specific one", not "why not this specific one".

My problem is that the bible gives hundreds of "narrative answers" about how God might deal with various evil armies and or people, ...

well, no. Not in the same sense, it doesn't. You don't seem to have grasped that not every story in the bible is the same sort of story.

 

[variant]

God's interventions are strictly limited. Given an answer to why God doesn't do so generally, the onus is very much on "why this specific one", not "why not this specific one".

Dues ex machina is actually very poor story telling I agree.

well, no. Not in the same sense, it doesn't. You don't seem to have grasped that not every story in the bible is the same sort of story.

Perhaps if they had labels or some sort of distinction between the types.

 

[ebia]

Perhaps if they had labels or some sort of distinction between the types.

Because that's how our culture likes things presented?

 

[variant]

Because that's how our culture likes things presented?

Because clarity is important when you are trying to actually convey information.

When you speak in riddles, or interpretations of "narratives" it just seems like the story is meant to explain any facts that come along rather than actually telling us anything.

 

[ebia]

Because clarity is important when you are trying to actually convey information.

Learning and teaching isn't primarily about transmission of data. The vast majority of it is inherently ambiguous.

 

[variant]

Learning and teaching isn't primarily about transmission of data. The vast majority of it is inherently ambiguous.

That the Bible sheds little if any actual light on the subject of Gods nature and leaves the question quite ambiguous, I agree, but that is kind of the problem.

The problem is that you would like to apply a specific lesson to a specific problem and you are just writing poetry like the rest.

 

[ebia]

That the Bible sheds little if any actual light on the subject of Gods nature and leaves the question quite ambiguous, I agree, but that is kind of the problem.

Neat attempt to deflect the whole point, noted.

The problem is that you would like to apply a specific lesson to a specific problem and you are just writing poetry like the rest.

On the contrary, the Noah story gives a good narrative account of why God doesn't wipe out evil. That's clearly relevant to the question why doesn't God wipe out DEASH. It just doesn't happen to fit modern western culture's preferred form of answer.

Poetry can be a superb way of addressing a question, there's no "just" about poetry.

 

[variant]

Neat attempt to deflect the whole point, noted.

You said I wasn't grasping something and then said it was ambiguous, it's odd that you want it both ways.

On the contrary, the Noah story gives a good narrative account of why God doesn't wipe out evil. That's clearly relevant to the question why doesn't God wipe out DEASH.

The Noah story says that God did wipe everyone out except one family, It really doesn't answer the question of why God doesn't usually intervene at all.

Or, why it doesn't seem God acts on this level at all now that we have video cameras but used to back in the day.

Poetry can be a superb way of addressing a question, there's no "just" about poetry.

Perhaps we'll send the US poet laureate in to deal with ISIS.

 

[ebia]

You said I wasn't grasping something and then said it was ambiguous, it's odd that you want it both ways.

All real learning is ambiguous.
Its when that's turned into "bible sheds no real light" that you've turned it into a deflection.

The Noah story says that God did wipe everyone out except one family, It really doesn't answer the question of why God doesn't usually intervene [to wipe out evil].

If you started reading it as a story written to address that question, from the framework of one expecting stories to be the primary and effective way of answering that sort of question, I suggest strongly that you would find it does exactly that. (Note that the story runs pretty exactly the whole of chapters 6-9)

 

[variant]

All real learning is ambiguous.
Its when that's turned into "bible sheds no real light" that you've turned it into a deflection.

It doesn't, you can't answer a simple question about God and why it does or doesn't act.

It means you lack understanding on this point and are grasping.

You actually simply accused me of simply not understanding then turned around and said the issue was ambiguous when I pointed out that it was unclear.

If you started reading it as a story written to address that question, from the framework of one expecting stories to be the primary and effective way of answering that sort of question, I suggest strongly that you would find it does exactly that. (Note that the story runs pretty exactly the whole of chapters 6-9)

You mean if I saw things as you did I would agree with you.

I'm sorry I don't think your interpretation explains the situation at all.

 

[ebia]

It doesn't, you can't answer a simple question about God and why it does or doesn't act.

I have answered it, by giving you a story.
Which is the right way of answering it.

Back to my analogy. If someone is proposing to run a nuclear power station, but only likes to learn through fairy tales, pandering to that is not a good idea. They need to learn to read and learn from a more appropriate genre for the particular question.

The appropriate genre for addressing questions like "why doesn't God wipe out evil", as most of humanity has known through most of history, is story. If you want a good answer to the question you need to learn to learn from story.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That would be the wanton destruction of evil people, right?

Were the infants, children, and animals who drowned all "evil people"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

With a story. Which is generally how most ancient cultures(rightly, IMO) understood to be the best way of addressing big questions.

It's our culture that has wrongly taught itself that stories are only for teaching little kids.

I think many small children are smart enough to figure out that the story imparts a bankrupt moral lesson.

 

[variant]

I have answered it, by giving you a story.
Which is the right way of answering it.

It seems like you're just avoiding the question rather than actually addressing it.

Back to my analogy. If someone is proposing to run a nuclear power station, but only likes to learn through fairy tales, pandering to that is not a good idea. They need to learn to read and learn from a more appropriate genre for the particular question.

The appropriate genre for addressing questions like "why doesn't God wipe out evil", as most of humanity has known through most of history, is story. If you want a good answer to the question you need to learn to learn from story.

No I suppose there is a concrete answer to the question that can be explained better than referencing a half relevant story that the referencer doesn't believe actually happened.

If those who say they know something about God can't answer basic questions then there is something suspect about their knowledge.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Neat attempt to deflect the whole point, noted.


On the contrary, the Noah story gives a good narrative account of why God doesn't wipe out evil. That's clearly relevant to the question why doesn't God wipe out DEASH. It just doesn't happen to fit modern western culture's preferred form of answer.

Poetry can be a superb way of addressing a question, there's no "just" about poetry.

The problem is that, even as a story, it doesn't provide an answer at all. It depicts a woefully incompetent and horribly destructive being immersed in a fit of rage. If that's your "answer" to why God doesn't address evil, then it may time to find a better answer.

 

[ebia]

I think many small children are smart enough to figure out that the story imparts a bankrupt moral lesson.

It's not a story for small children.
But your response reveals your presumption - that story as teaching is always at a small child level.

 

[ebia]

The problem is that, even as a story, it doesn't provide an answer at all. It depicts a woefully incompetent and horribly destructive being immersed in a fit of rage. If that's your "answer" to why God doesn't address evil, then it may time to find a better answer.

You clearly haven't read the story without removing your blinkers.

 

[ebia]

It seems like you're just avoiding the question rather than actually addressing it.

Since you insist on using pronouns and referential terms that would require going back an awful lot of posts to find the antecedent is possible that I'm misunderstanding what "the question" and "it" refer to.

No I suppose there is a concrete answer to the question that can be explained better than referencing a half relevant story that the referencer doesn't believe actually happened.

Translates as "I want the instructions in fairy tale and I won't take anything else".

 

[variant]

Since you insist on using pronouns and referential terms that would require going back an awful lot of posts to find the antecedent is possible that I'm misunderstanding what "the question" and "it" refer to.

You've forgotten the question of the OP that you didn't address?

You've simply said that the story of Noah addresses it when it doesn't clearly do anything of the sort.

Translates as "I want the instructions in fairy tale and I won't take anything else".

I specifically don't want the instructions in fairy tale, so that's a bad translation you've got going.