I Just Don't Freakin' Get It!

[Ambassador Pony]

No offense, but your summery of the exile from paradise in the bible was sort of the equivalent of this:

LOL

No offense, but it's actually quite wintery where I am.

[Gill]

I don't think most people who are religious take the bible so literally.  Sure, there will be a few groups, but I don't think that's the vast majority. I sure don't.

what do you take literally in the bible, Gill?

Don't know, never read it. 

[Philosopher_at_large]

IMO, homosexual theists are even more confusing. How can you worship something that hates you?

I think its a forgone conclusion that homosexual theists don't that god hates them

[Azdgari]

Not quite a forgone conclusion, but a reasonable expectation, Pal.  There are theists who hold that their god deems all humans to be morally deserving of eternal torture.  That's hatred on a scale that's difficult to wrap my mortal mind around.  At the same time, though, gods generally agree with their believers, you're right.

[One Above All]

I think its a forgone conclusion that homosexual theists don't that god hates them

I have a gay friend who's quite aware of this. He spends all his time complaining about it too. It'd be annoying, if it weren't sad.

[Illuminatus99]

Ditto on the Stockholm Syndrome.

My favorite is women in the Muslim world that say they are worshiped and treated respectfully. Now that is Stockholm to the 10th degree. I have heard Muslim women say that the reason they must cover up is because their men care so much for them that they don't want to share their beauty with the outside world. They want to protect it.

The one I heard is that they cover up in order to be equal and not be judged on their looks, only their skill and wisdom.

[velkyn]

The one I heard is that they cover up in order to be equal and not be judged on their looks, only their skill and wisdom.

which is amusing in that they aern't allowed to have any skill or wisdom.  Women will become whores if they drive cars !

[joebbowers]

IMO, homosexual theists are even more confusing. How can you worship something that hates you?

I think its a forgone conclusion that homosexual theists don't that god hates them

Missing a verb there.

don't know?
don't care?
don't believe?
don't understand?

What were you trying to say?

[RaymondKHessel]

I think your analysis above, and the one in this post represent the same depth of understanding seasoned with the same barely restrained irritation as Mr (or MRS) Garrison's analysis of Evolution.

....... and I think that's funny. lol.

oh and how should one "truly understand" the myths in the bible?  Please do elucidate.

The same way we can "truly understand" any literature, particularly old to ancient works: by first identifying what narrative approach is being used, what imagery or terminology is being used by the author(s), and what they mean, and not having an automatic disdain for the material. It''s hard to get the point of Lear if you think that Shakespeare was just a big blowhard who used an unnecessarily complicated Elizabethan language in order to sound deep.

Hey, for what it's worth, I didn't have disdain for the material until I read it, and I read it pretty much the way it's been described here... Guy magically poofed out of dirt, his lady out of his sparerib, a walking talking snake that was really an evil goat man (though GOD didn't know this apparently because he ended up cursing the entire SPECIES of animal instead of his arch-nemesis Super Satan)...

The magic Smartfruit(tm) and the TREE of Smartfruit(tm) and God saying "DONT EAT IT OR U WILL DIE!" and then them not dying and instead being cursed for disobeying even though nobody knew what disobyeing WAS prior to eating the Smartfruit(TM)... Plus all these things like God CREATING man naked which was apparently sinful but nobody knew...

Gah, I can't go on. It's a silly story dude. Even with all the flowerly language. All that room for metaphor; I just don't see it. And when I hear Christians try to use a crowbar to force in some kind of existential meanings it makes me go cross eyed.

"Oh, it wasn't REALLY a talking snake..." 

Oh really? So it was just filler text when the god comes back and curses it to crawl on the ground and eat dirt and all of that?

"But snakes don't EAT dirt! It was a metaphor!"

No, it wasn't. Ancient priests thought snakes were eating dirt when they flicked out their tounges. They were not biologists.   

Give me a break. And comparing it to SHAKESPEAR is pretty far-out. A Slim-Jim is not a steak, no matter how much A-1 you put on it.

[velkyn]

The same way we can "truly understand" any literature, particularly old to ancient works: by first identifying what narrative approach is being used, what imagery or terminology is being used by the author(s), and what they mean, and not having an automatic disdain for the material. It''s hard to get the point of Lear if you think that Shakespeare was just a big blowhard who used an unnecessarily complicated Elizabethan language in order to sound deep.

So, since I did that, my understanding of the creation story is quite valid.  Thank you.  I still have a disdain for the material.   

But, all amusement aside, I'm guessing that you would not agree and that you would wish to assert that I didn't do it "right".  So, please do tell me what the narrative approach is, what imagery and terminlogy is being used and what they mean. 

And, tell me how you know your version is any more correct than mine.

I don't understand the first part of your response, what did you do?

exactly what you claimed to be the way to interpret literature correctly.    You know, your post above that I've bolded the pertinent parts. 

I'm waiting to see how you know your version is any more correct than mine since I did what you said and got my answer. 

[Nam]

I actually can't. I don't understand enough about the context of the poem to make any kind of judgement about it: only YOU could inform me about the context.

I think the context is pretty clear.

my whole point.

Not according to what I quoted and responded to.

If a person is handed a Bible, and the person who handed it leaves and never comes back; Christians state all the time that the Bible is God's word, and therefore, if one can read and write, then, they should be able to understand it without needing help from any one else.  But that one person will be baffled because they won't understand that much of what is in the OT are parables, and poetry, which should be not taken literally; and the things that are meant to be taken literally they may take another way (or actually literally).  And, the same goes with much of what's in the NT, as well.  See, most will be reading it from a literal perspective through and through but the individual books in the bible are meant for that; and even when it is told that it's not meant for that, some people get angry at that fact because that's not their conclusion, or what they were instructed to believe.

-Nam

[Samothec]

If I wrote a story about a man who rebelled against the established religious authority and gathered a group of men around him to learn how to teach the rebellion – with just one woman hanging around, most people would think the group was a seditious cult of homosexuals complete with fag-hag. But this is the savior of faithful breeders?     (shudder)

Genesis is even wackier than you guys have pointed out so far.

If there was no light until god created it and "the earth was without form and void" – a formless void I think – then doesn't that mean god dwelled in the lightless void aka the abyss?

Xians have no problem with god creating man from clay but then they heavily criticize a proposed origin of life – abiogenesis – as "unrealistic"?

God tells A&E they will die if they eat from the tree. Dang there is a lot just in that alone.
Why is the tree in the garden and not on a planet somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy – or at least New Zealand if god is lazy?
If "original sin" causes death, how do A&E have any clue what god means? 'If you eat from the tree of knowledge, you will bargle on that day' – is what it would be like unless death already existed.
So, other than the legged 'snake', what other animals could talk? I understand they are young and very naive but why aren't they a little surprised?

Other posters have covered the other problems.

God goads Cain into killing his brother then consoles him and sends him off to find a wife, have kids, build a town and generally prosper – how is this a punishment? You'd think maybe god wanted Cain to kill his brother.

[velkyn]

God goads Cain into killing his brother then consoles him and sends him off to find a wife, have kids, build a town and generally prosper – how is this a punishment? You'd think maybe god wanted Cain to kill his brother.

it certainly seems very odd. 

[learnin]

As some of you know, I was a very religious person for about 40 years of my adult life.   As I get older, I realize, more and more, that believers actually don't put a lot of faith in the story.     Most all believers, I know, will do anything they can to extend their life, here on good ole earth, a few more years.   This tells me that they aren't at all sure there is anything left after they die.  I work in the healthcare profession and serious religious believers are even more concerned about their health than others.

In fact, if science came up with a pill that would enable believers to live 500 healthy years, they would all take it, Billy Graham and Pat Robertson included.  But why would they do such a thing if heaven is so wonderful and Jesus is the love of their life????

[madame_zora]

The reasons people believe in religions are very different from the reasons leaders promote them.
The dumber society gets as a whole, the more fundamentalistic religions become. The most backward countries have the most fundamental religions- look at how badly OUR country has back-tracked! This website exists because the need for it exists- while a few people are getting wise to the religious fraud, the majority are clinging to it harder than they used to.

Most people live in fear, and their religious are the safety nets they apply to their lives to save them from the things they fear- solitude, insignificance, death. "If I'm just an amoeba in a godless world, what's the POINT?" they cry, as if their question was a fact. It isn't, it's just s question! People want "meaning" in their lives, and they want it provided from an outside source- and they think that BECAUSE they want it, they therefore deserve it! This is the part that cracks me up.

They look like toddlers screaming and throwing poo because they want something they can't have, so now they're mad at Mommy. Believing in god gives them someone to blame for everything they don't like. Poor god.

[Samothec]

As some of you know, I was a very religious person for about 40 years of my adult life.   As I get older, I realize, more and more, that believers actually don't put a lot of faith in the story.     Most all believers, I know, will do anything they can to extend their life, here on good ole earth, a few more years.   This tells me that they aren't at all sure there is anything left after they die.  I work in the healthcare profession and serious religious believers are even more concerned about their health than others.

In fact, if science came up with a pill that would enable believers to live 500 healthy years, they would all take it, Billy Graham and Pat Robertson included.  But why would they do such a thing if heaven is so wonderful and Jesus is the love of their life????

That is so very on the money from what I've seen. The rabidly religious are so hypocritical. 'Send us your money because Jesus said you should give all you money and possessions away.' Except they don't do that - they only collect the money. So many contradictions.

[velkyn]

and I just can't get one Christian to be useful and have the chance to get to their "reward" faster by helping people like these: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/landmines/jenkins-text 

they always have an excuse.