An explanation of why many of the baffling details within the tale of Noah & the Ark begin to make sense once the story is read from the perspective that it's a monotheistic version (in which God i...
An explanation of why many of the baffling details within the tale of Noah & the Ark begin to make sense once the story is read from the perspective that it's a monotheistic version (in which God is said to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Benevolent) of a story that was originally polytheistic (in which the gods were none of the above).
By Todd Allen Gates, author of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer."
This video series is also posted on the Rational Response Squad site, where there's no word/character limitation on the Comments section: see http://www.rationalresponders.com/noa...
An overview of whole series:
1 of 7: a brief description of videos 2 through 7.
2 of 7: a description of the Socratic Method.
3 of 7: the ground premises that the skeptic needs to establish with the Christian in order (a) for the Socratic Method to work, and (b) to focus on the issue at hand, which is "Are there valid reasons for me to believe that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Word of God?"
4 of 7: the skeptic and the Christian read through scriptures and stories from non-Christian religions. Both agree that the following three characteristics are strong clues that a religion was not created by an Omniscient Wisdom, but just made up by people: (1) a cluelessness about the true layout of the universe, (2) senseless prejudices, (3) the borrowing of ideas & stories from pre-existing religions.
5 of 7: the skeptic and the Christian read through the Judeo-Christian Bible, and examine it by the same critical light just held up to non-Christian religions.
Science, Religion, and "truth" vs. "Truth": An explanation of how science and religion are opposites of each other when it comes to how permanent each considers its own knowledge to be--why religion spells its truths with a Capital T, and why science uses the lowercase t. This discussion is a continuation of a topic brought up in Video 5, but as my notes for this tangent issue grew longer and longer, I decided to give this 3-part series a separate title.
5.1 -- 5.4: Further details on the origins of the Judeo-Christian bible--how many of its ideas & stories can be found in religions that pre-date the bible by centuries.
5.1 explains why many of the baffling details within the tale of Noah & the Ark make sense once the story is read as a monotheistic version (in which God is said to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Benevolent) of a story that was originally polytheistic (in which the gods were none of the above).
5.2 discusses the pre-Christian religious stories from the Greeks, Romans, and Zoroastrians about unions between gods & mortals, miraculous virgin births, and offspring that were both human and god. It also covers the "Satanic pre-plagiarization" explanations from early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian on how the pagans knew about these phenomena centuries before the time of Jesus.
5.3: Richard Dawkins refers to the Christian premises behind the belief that Jesus/God sacrificed Himself to appease Himself as "barking mad." This video looks at each of those premises--Divine Anger, the need for sacrifice, the use of a scapegoat--from the perspective of comparative mythology. A subtitle for this video would be "Richard Dawkins meets Joseph Campbell."
5.4: the evolution of the afterlife. Stage One - the 37 out of 39 Old Testament books that don't mention, or deny, an afterlife. Stage Two - the 2 Old Testament books that say there IS an afterlife. Stage Three - The New Testament, in which the afterlife becomes one of Christianity's main selling points.
6 of 7: a discussion of an abbreviated form of using the Socratic Method with proselytizers.
7 of 7: a discussion of why my approach focuses on skepticism of so-called revealed religions rather than skepticism of a Creator.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
> For the writer Yahweh's behaviors really were not contradictions.
Agreed, but Jews and Christians today don't read the bible as a collection of contributions from different authors with different ideas about god--they read it as one book about one Omnipotent God.
So yes, the author who saw as god as neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent wasn't putting together a contradiction-filled story -- although I doubt that's a defense that would comfort many believers!
Nice video Mr. Gates. Personally, given the omniscience of the Judeo-Christian deity, Yahweh supposedly knowing that all this would happen from the start, it feels like a petulent child throwing away his toys because they don't do what he wants them to.
Considering the various ways their god intervenes in later books (Jesus, even in Moses' case, although since Yahweh also prohibited Pharoah from releasing them...), drowning them seems so utterly unneccesary.
On the 7th day the flood ended. No more noise was heard, man and animal had been annihilated. Because there was no noise _all_ the gods rested on this 7th day, which was recast as the Hebrew Shabbat or Sabbath via a "new twist": instead of gods resting on a 7th day after destroying the earth one god rests after creating the earth. The Hebrews are refuting Mesopotamian concepts via inversions of myths. Enlil is berated by Enki and Ishtar for drowning innocent people! A chastened Enlil repents!
> The Hebrews are refuting the Mesopotamian concepts via inversion of myths ...
The Mesopotamian myths had the distasteful aspect of the gods (i.e. "nature") not caring about man -- but in that way, the Mesopotamian stories were, I'm almost tempted to say, more accurate! Or at least, the storytelling hung together better: no need to twist reality into saying that a loving righteous god is in control of the tides and tsunamis.
Mans' noise disturbed the god Enlil who could not rest by day nor sleep by night. Man was created to replace the noisey Igigi gods who for 40 years worked day and night without rest in Enlil's garden at Nippur. They rebelled, man was made to replace them. The Igigi's noise was transferred to man. Man's noise was that of the Igigi: Objecting that they had no rest from toil in Enlil's garden in edin/eden! Overworked man's noise was ended by a flood which brought silence and rest for Enlil.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Thanks!
The writer of Genesis saw Yahweh in the mode of other ancient near-eastern deities.
For the writer Yahweh's behaviors really were not contradictions.
Agreed, but Jews and Christians today don't read the bible as a collection of contributions from different authors with different ideas about god--they read it as one book about one Omnipotent God.
So yes, the author who saw as god as neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent wasn't putting together a contradiction-filled story -- although I doubt that's a defense that would comfort many believers!
Considering the various ways their god intervenes in later books (Jesus, even in Moses' case, although since Yahweh also prohibited Pharoah from releasing them...), drowning them seems so utterly unneccesary.
Good analogy!
> Considering the various ways their god intervenes ... drowning them seems so utterly unneccesary.
Maybe the pre-flood population was so bad that they were beyond hope--even for an omnipotent god!
The Mesopotamian myths had the distasteful aspect of the gods (i.e. "nature") not caring about man -- but in that way, the Mesopotamian stories were, I'm almost tempted to say, more accurate! Or at least, the storytelling hung together better: no need to twist reality into saying that a loving righteous god is in control of the tides and tsunamis.