What Does Water Represent In The Bible? A Christian Study

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

So water in the Bible represents the cleansing of the sinner by the washing of the water of the Word of God; water is also the source of the living water that springs up into eternal life; Jesus referred to the coming of the “living water” as the Holy Spirit which at the time He spoke had not yet been poured out; and finally, God is this source of this living water in both the Old and the New Testament and those who drink from it will never die and indeed, shall never thirst again (John 4:14).

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/07/17/what-does-water-represent-in-the-bible-a-christian-study/

Water is the medium through which baptism is performed, and it’s extremely fitting. Since water can symbolize cleansing and life, it is perfect to use in baptism.
When someone gets baptized, they are submerged under the water for a second, and then come back up. The whole process shows an outward expression of a true inner value; the person is publicly declaring that they have new life in Jesus Christ. All of the past sins and mistakes are dead (symbolic in the act of submerging the person in water) and then raised in newness of life (symbolic in the act of raising the person back up from the water). It is an expression of what has taken place within the heart; a full cleansing and new life.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/11/11/what-is-the-bible-or-spiritual-meaning-of-water/

The great flood referenced in the Bible can be read literally, but when people read deeply, and widely, it is generally apparent that the metaphorical use of water is everywhere.

A ritual bath cannot literally wash sins away. And Jews understand this.

Dipping a person in water for Baptism does not literally wash sin away. And Christians understand this.

The great flood has been seen as a metaphor for the cleansing of the earth for centuries.

[TEB]

1. Life a cleansing of sin

Forgiveness

[guillaumeb]

3. And renewal.

Water is necessary for life, and a new life is made possible by the water of Baptism.

[TEB]

15. I agree

And I fall short of grace daily yet am forgiven as believer

[True Dough]

2. We all know

the Bible doesn't hold water!

[guillaumeb]

5. Not much of a solo by the drummer. eom

[Cartoonist]

4. Give it up Gil

This is the most ridiculous interpretation of Noah's flood I ever heard. Since when is mass murder a metaphor for "cleansing"? Oh yeah, when Hitler does it.

[guillaumeb]

6. Thus speaks the official definer

of how the Bible is to be interpreted?

Simply because you never heard of it proves one thing. That you might want to read more widely.

[sprinkleeninow]

8. You rockin' it with this one, the OP. Spiritually, that is. Beautiful.

Love you!

[guillaumeb]

10. Thank you.

Apparently there are quite a few Biblical literalists who read these posts.

Not being a literalist myself, and having 17 years of education at religious schools, I am aware that the Bible uses metaphorical language to express things.

Guill.

[Major Nikon]

17. So do you think the flood was a literal event or not?

I'm not really expecting a straight answer from someone who demands answers, yet never provides them, BTW.

[guillaumeb]

43. A world wide event?

No.

[Major Nikon]

57. You didn't answer the question

As fully predicted.

[guillaumeb]

58. But I did.

The literal reading is that the earth was inundated.

While local flooding occurs, that is not the same.

So I did answer.

[Major Nikon]

61. You didn't answer the question

You responded with a question. That’s not an answer.

So I’ll ask again and once again predict your non-answer.

Do you think the flood was a literal event or not?

If you want to qualify your answer, then feel free but as yet you haven’t answered the question and I’m pretty sure you won’t because as we both know you can’t without either contradicting yourself or your source. So feel free to continue to dodge the question as that in itself provides an answer to another question.

[guillaumeb]

62. Flooding occurs everywhere. Even in that area of the world.

Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?

No.

And as a non-literalist, that is no contradiction because we recognize the use of metaphor in the Bible.

Edited at 5.15 CST to add:

Most interpretations of the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood assume that the story is either entirely literal or entirely figurative (and therefore fictional). This assumption is unwarranted. Many Scripture passages contain both literal and figurative elements. For example, Jesus tells the disciples that Lazarus is sleeping — He is using a figure. Then He explains that Lazarus is dead — now He is speaking literally. Even the expression Love your neighbor contains both literal and figurative elements. The term love is literal. The term neighbor is a figure, meaning that we should treat even persons who are not our neighbors as if they were.
So we can hold that there was literally a Noah and a great Flood and an Ark with animals. But we can also hold that the story includes certain figurative elements: that the Flood covered all the earth, that the Ark contained all animals, that all humans were killed other than in the Ark, etc.
Any argument that proves the Flood could not have covered the whole earth, or that all human persons could not have been killed at that time, or that all animals could not have fit on the Ark, only proves that those elements are figurative. It does prove that the entire story is fiction.

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/noah-and-the-flood-literal-or-figurative/

[marylandblue]

65. This raises more questions than it answers

Why is Lazarus sleeping figurative and dead literal? Obviously, in this view, because that makes it a literal miracle. But if the story literally happened, it's more likely he was literally sleeping but appeared dead.

So did the miracle literally happen or figuratively happen? It seems some people want to have it all ways. He was both literally and figuratively raised from the dead and it both is and is not a miracle.

[guillaumeb]

66. The poster asked one question.

I answered it.


And the question is in line with the OP, which deals with water as metaphor.

[Major Nikon]

68. Still waiting on that answer

[guillaumeb]

69. That is puzzling, given that I answered earlier.

Here it is again, from upthread:

Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?

No.

And as a non-literalist, that is no contradiction because we recognize the use of metaphor in the Bible.

[Major Nikon]

76. You answered your own question, not mine

Kinda dishonest to pretend otherwise, especially when you post the proof.

[Lordquinton]

108. What are you saying?

that he is some kind of liar? HOW DAER YOU!

And notice he stopped replying to you because you directly called him on his tactics.

[Lordquinton]

109. Again supplying more evidence that I was correct

You insist that saying there is a god, and believing a god exists are two very different and separate things that anyone should be able to tell apart, but you now claim that " So do you think the flood was a literal event or not?" and "Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?" are the exact same question.

Some kind of selective nuance.

[marylandblue]

71. "There are floods" is not an answer

Of course there are floods! But nobody asked about that. What we want to know is: Do you think that Divine intervention cause an Ancient Near Eastern person, to anticipate a flood, build a boat, put his family and some animals in it, and survive while everyone else in the area died? If any part of that story is not literal, which parts and why.

Do I really need to spell it out this way?

[guillaumeb]

73. Did you read #62?

This part specifically:

Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?

No.

And as a non-literalist, that is no contradiction because we recognize the use of metaphor in the Bible.

Because I am unsure what exactly prompted your response.

[marylandblue]

75. Yes, but also posted this.

Most interpretations of the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood assume that the story is either entirely literal or entirely figurative (and therefore fictional).

Which is a case of question begging. The narrative relies heavily on miraculous elements, so even if the flood is not worldwide, there are a number of other elements in question. If you take all the miraculous elements out, it ends being a guy who saved himself from a local flood in his own boat. Which means it probably is not literal at all, because that is not a story for the ages, although I am sure there have been people in history who survived a flood in their boat.

[guillaumeb]

78. There were no doubt floods in that area.

Possibly large ones that prompted the story.

If one makes the argument that the author intended the story to be taken literally, one must accept that there is no argument or proof for that argument.

[marylandblue]

80. There is a lot of proof that it was to be taken literally

The strongest of which is that as far back as we can trace all the Old Testament miraculous stories and up until the 19th century, they were always taken literally.

[guillaumeb]

81. That is beside the point,

which concerned the intent of the author.

So this is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Agreed? Remember, we are not talking about a mathematical proof, we are speaking of authorial proof, proof of authorial intent, in a piece of writing.

[marylandblue]

82. Well, let me guess, we can't know the author's intent

Just like we can't know if Cervantes was writing history or fiction, right?

[guillaumeb]

121. A weak analogy. eom

[marylandblue]

124. It's not my position, it's my guess at what you might say

With a bit of humor added. But if I guessed wrong about your position, please tell me correct me.

[marylandblue]

83. I read post 62 and reread the story of Noah

And literally the only part that could have happened is the part where Noah got drunk. Which hardly seems like much of a story. So why not just say the whole thing never happened? Is that really so hard to say?

[MineralMan]

72. Sounds like the Monty Python parrot sketch.

Innit?

[marylandblue]

110. lol

[Major Nikon]

74. It gets even better

Gil describes his having it all ways opinion as “very widely shared”, then posts a source that says most interpretations go one way or another.

The author gives an example of figurative language in the bible. Even if you agree with that(and there’s reason not to), how do you get from a sleeping Lazarus to a figurative flood? Not surprisingly the author doesn’t say, nor does he explain why the bible went to such great lengths to describe a literal flood and its extent.

[Major Nikon]

67. As fully predicted, you didn't answer the question

So now your latest source contradicts your other four sources which claim the flood was a literal event.

Not only that, it says most interpretations go fully one way or the other which blows a big hole in your claim that your defining interpretation is “widely accepted”. I bet you hoped I’d miss that part, eh?

So please do continue to obsfucate. I’m fully enjoying watching you continue to dig a deeper hole.

[guillaumeb]

70. See #62 and #69

[Major Nikon]

77. See #76

[guillaumeb]

79. Have fun.

[sprinkleeninow]

46. There may have been a 'literal' flood literally, but the interpretation may be that it should be

taken as allegorical.

I'm working onnit!1!!

[sprinkleeninow]

22. This. 😉

[pangaia]

151. I don't have one second of training at religious schools.

And I am aware that the Bible uses metaphorical language to express things.

[guillaumeb]

166. I do not doubt that. eom

[Major Nikon]

13. Do you view the flood in Genesis as a literal event?

Just curious.

[sprinkleeninow]

23. I'll get back to you, I will. With a reasoned answer and not one from my exegesis.

One from 'scholars'/'theologians'. One from the Faith I try to represent.

I am not a literalist myself either. To a certain extent.

Do you feel 'God' is punishing some with earthquakes, floods, fires, hurt, pain, despair presently?

[Major Nikon]

25. The question you ask is loaded

So rather than answering yes or no, my answer in keeping with my religiously unaffiliated preference is I don't care.

[Major Nikon]

14. I bet you're wishing you had read your own links more closely

Otherwise one might think you are a bible literalist. And we all know that's not the case, right?

[guillaumeb]

48. Hello definer.

[Major Nikon]

54. Hello name caller

[guillaumeb]

56. I am describing your actions.

So yes, that is name calling in the sense of labelling what you are doing.

[Major Nikon]

59. Bullshit

You invented a bullshit “definer” narrative and then expanded your bullshit narrative with name calling. Then you even had the nerve to project your half-fast ad hominem on me with zero basis.

[guillaumeb]

60. No, I interpreted your remarks literally.

Your preferred style.

And it was you who rejected my Biblical interpretation of water being a well known metaphor for cleansing. If memory serves, you called it a "bullshit" interpretation.

[Major Nikon]

63. Bullshit

You formed a bullshit strawman fallacy followed up with ad hominem name calling with your “definer” nonsense.

I rejected your interpretation the author(s) of Genesis meant a metaphorical flood rather than a literal one. Other people did as well. Hell even your own sources don’t agree with you. You are the only one who defined anything which you can’t even begin to support with anything other than your own baseless opinion.

Meanwhile you won’t even answer a straightforward question as to whether you now consider the flood to be a literal event like all your sources do.

But feel free to continue with your usual canned responses and name calling. It’s really the best you have at this point and it’s not as if I’d expect anything else.

[guillaumeb]

64. So you did not read this:

2. Flooding occurs everywhere. Even in that area of the world.

Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?

No.

And as a non-literalist, that is no contradiction because we recognize the use of metaphor in the Bible.

Edited at 5.15 CST to add:

Most interpretations of the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood assume that the story is either entirely literal or entirely figurative (and therefore fictional). This assumption is unwarranted. Many Scripture passages contain both literal and figurative elements. For example, Jesus tells the disciples that Lazarus is sleeping — He is using a figure. Then He explains that Lazarus is dead — now He is speaking literally. Even the expression Love your neighbor contains both literal and figurative elements. The term love is literal. The term neighbor is a figure, meaning that we should treat even persons who are not our neighbors as if they were.
So we can hold that there was literally a Noah and a great Flood and an Ark with animals. But we can also hold that the story includes certain figurative elements: that the Flood covered all the earth, that the Ark contained all animals, that all humans were killed other than in the Ark, etc.
Any argument that proves the Flood could not have covered the whole earth, or that all human persons could not have been killed at that time, or that all animals could not have fit on the Ark, only proves that those elements are figurative. It does prove that the entire story is fiction.

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/noah-and-the-flood-literal-or-figurative/
If you did not read it, here is your opportunity.

[marylandblue]

84. You just reposted the same thing, with same problems, but

I'll tell about you a different problem with it. It basically says.it partly literal and partly figurative, because whatever could not be literal must be figurative. Which is a meaningless tautology.

[Major Nikon]

97. You mean the one that contradicted your previous assertion?

Try reading your own source that says “most” interpretations are either literal or figurative and then tell us again how your interpretation is “very widely shared”.

Or just repeat the same post once more and give me another opportunity to embarrass you again.

[MineralMan]

112. Knowledge depends on definitions.

Without clear definitions, there is no knowledge.

Your attempt at name-calling is a total failure.

[MineralMan]

111. You have defined yourself.

[Major Nikon]

16. Gil has posted no less than 4 links as a proof of concept for his "metaphor"

Every single one regards the flood as a literal event. Meanwhile if you call bullshit on Gil's interpretation that it wasn't intended to be a literal event, you are called a "fundamentalist" and a "definer" both terms intended as a pejorative.

Oh well, as with many believers it's do as I say, not as I do.

[sprinkleeninow]

47. Ground Control to...

"Do as I do and not as I say."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

119. Same thing it means in pretty much all of literature.

I don't think you will find anything new or different in the bible compared to the use of water as a symbol before and after the writing of the bible.

[guillaumeb]

7. More:

The Bible contains dozens of metaphorical usages of water. For example, in the Old Testament water is a metaphor or simile for fear (Joshua 7:5 ), death (2 Samuel 14:14 ), sin (Job 15:16 ), God's presence (Psalm 72:6 ), marital fidelity (Proverbs 5:15-16 ), the knowledge of God (Isaiah 11 ), salvation (Isaiah 12:3 ), the Spirit (Isaiah 44:3-4 ), God's blessings (Isaiah 58:11 ), God's voice (Ezekiel 43:2 ), God's wrath (Hosea 5:10 ), and justice (Amos 5:24 ). Among the metaphorical uses of water in the New Testament are references to birth (John 3:5 ), the Spirit (John 4:10 ), spiritual training (1 Corinthians 3:6 ), and life (Revelation 7:17 ). See Creation ; Famine and Drought ; Flood ; Rain .

https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/w/water.html

[sprinkleeninow]

24. 👍

[sanatanadharma]

9. Water in the Bhagavad Gita 7:8

God Krishna says, I am the taste of water.

'I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.'

As simile, analogy, parable or metaphor, water is used often in Vedic teaching.
What need of a well when the river is in flood?
Ocean and waves to explain separate-individuality (wave) and oneness-identity (ocean).

[guillaumeb]

11. Thank you for the contribution.

I have little knowledge of the book, or of the teachings, but water as a symbol of renewal is everywhere in the Abrahamic religions.

[Major Nikon]

12. Your links don't say what you think they say

Your first link doesn't even mention the flood.

Your second link from the OP regards the flood as a literal event.

He sent a flood to wipe out the wickedness from the earth, except for Noah, his family, and two of every kind of animal.

The subsequent proof of concept in post #7 also regards the flood as a literal event.

However, water is sometimes used in punishment for sin, as with the flood of Noah's day

In case there was any doubt...

[Lordquinton]

27. That gif describes literally all his posts

He relies on no one reading his links.

[trotsky]

34. Wait a minute.

Are you telling me that in a desperate attempt to defend a ridiculous comment in another thread, gil posted a link that directly contradicts his position?

[Major Nikon]

36. He posted two other links in that one

Both of which also contradict his assertion.

[guillaumeb]

49. Hello co-definer.

[Voltaire2]

85. What the ever loving fuck is this new shtick if yours?

[trotsky]

114. He's proven he can't actually reason or argue in defense of his beliefs.

In fact, when he *tries* he only succeeds in humiliating himself, as he did once again in this thread.

So he resorts to attacking those who hold different opinions, to try and silence or at least negate their point of view.

Classic guillaumeb.

[Mariana]

115. This may be about the numerous personal messages Gil receives

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. Perhaps the personal messages aren't as numerous as they used to be, and he's trying out some new material in an attempt to revive the interest of his fickle fans.

[trotsky]

113. It's cute how you've embraced your new tool to try and silence people who disagree with you.

But embarrassing how you mis-use it, just like all the other ones you've tried.

[guillaumeb]

123. How clever. eom

[guillaumeb]

44. If only you stayed with your gif(t)s.

But you are consistent.

[Major Nikon]

50. I'll take your non-response as tacit admission of self-contradiction

[guillaumeb]

51. Misreading of text seems to be your own forte.

Using the word forte, of course, in an ironic sense.

You can continue to insist that the Flood story can only be interpreted as an angry deity punishing people. And by such an insistence, you define yourself as the Definer of what constitutes acceptable textual analysis.

[Major Nikon]

53. You stole my line!

Meanwhile you still haven’t answered why your own links define an actual flood in just that way and there’s no reason to suspect you ever will answer the glaring contradiction of your own making.

But feel free to continue to hurl your pejoratives as people often do when their reasoning has reached its limits. I’ll also take that as a tacit admission of intellectual bankruptcy.

[guillaumeb]

55. "Hurl pejoratives"?

That too is your forte.

I stated that water is a well known and frequently used Biblical metaphor for cleansing, and I interpret the Flood story as metaphor.

And you insisted that my interpretation is, in your words, "bullshit".

You insist on the story being taken literally because it serves your agenda. But your attempt to limit what is acceptable interpretation reveals you as a literalist definer.

[Voltaire2]

86. "Your argument is bullshit" is not name calling or a

personal attack, it is a negative description of your argument, not of you.

On the other hand your current defensive tactic is now to call people here “definers”, which is apparently intended as a personal attack but in practice is so juvenile that it mostly just makes you look petulant.

Like with your previous shtick “the choir”, you should do some meditation, some self reflection, and drop it.

[guillaumeb]

122. No, the tactic is to claim that only one acceptable definition exists.

[marylandblue]

126. Nobody claimed there is only one definition

They claimed that your particular methodology doesn't make sense and also that the links you provided contradict some of your statements.

[Major Nikon]

149. Bullshit

[sprinkleeninow]

88. NOW I see where the name calling thingy came in according to

a personne of major import.

Ooh, 'definer'. That's really hitting below the belt.


Mon frère, Guillaume,
😚

[Major Nikon]

90. Certainly more silly than most

I could really care less what names he uses. It reflects negatively on him, not me.

Good job on cheering on his juvenile behavior, though.

[sprinkleeninow]

92. I am fond of this brother and will make no apologies.

'Definer' is mild as a so-called 'name', no?

Oy, Gefilte.

[Major Nikon]

94. One of many used

Are you also going to encourage him with the rest of them? Which names would you find acceptable when used against you?

[sprinkleeninow]

96. Acceptable names used against me. You may proceed. 🙂

[Major Nikon]

98. Looks like a non-answer

Which provides its own answer.

[sprinkleeninow]

101. You put me in a tizzz....

[sprinkleeninow]

102. Call me some acceptable names. 🤗

[Major Nikon]

104. Liberal. Democrat.

Human.

Do you need more examples of names intended to be complementary vs belittling?

[sprinkleeninow]

106. Heheh. I'll take 'em. 😤

[sprinkleeninow]

107. Here's yours: Liberal, Democrat, A sister or brother in humanity, a side-kick traveler

on a contemplative journey, a body who entertains different views regarding life/belief from Moi dot dot dot...

"Call 1-800-how'm I doin'"

[Major Nikon]

100. You posted a source that proves it's bullshit

Most interpretations of the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood assume that the story is either entirely literal or entirely figurative (and therefore fictional).

Tell us again how your interpretation is “very widely shared” after your own source says the opposite.

[gtar100]

18. I love seeing how water is a bringer of life to the Earth.

The mountains are raised, the rain and snow collect, the rivers run through the canyons and out into the plains (originally dry lands), and everywhere it goes life springs forth. And wherever this process arises life flourishes. Eventually rivers dry up (the waters go in a new direction or the sources dry up) and life recedes. But where water flows, life flourishes. Using it as a metaphor and in rituals makes perfect sense.

And how our modern world treats our waterways - rivers and streams, lakes large and small, all the way to the oceans - how we pollute it with our waste and take it for granted on a daily basis, is also telling of how out of sync we are with the natural order of the world, out of sync with the spirit of life.

[Major Nikon]

19. It helps to understand hidden meanings

What's happening here is Gil is dragging his argument that the flood mentioned in Genesis should not be viewed as a literal event and is instead a metaphor for something else which he can't quite manage to define but it has something to do with sin and taking a bath, but definitely not genocide. If anyone rejects this half-baked notion, they are referred to as ignorant of history, a biblical literalist, a definer, and a fundamentalist.

So as proof of his non-literalist concept he is dragging out references ad nauseum that all point to the flood as a literal event. If this sounds crazy to you, don't feel as if you're the only one.

[NeoGreen]

33. It wasn't Genocide, as related in the mythical story...

...it was effectively Omnicide: the act of killing all humans, to create intentional extinction of the human species. The purported leaving of fewer than 10 people alive, as related in the mythology, would be an extinction level event. Good thing it is all a myth, otherwise the inevitable incest would have sealed the deal.

But { -on}, it was a "cleansing", and that is a "good" thing to some people who believe in certain mythologies gleaned from bronze age oral stories barely preserved in tattered manuscripts and then translated (poorly) into languages not yet born { -off}.

Inquiry: If a sandstorm abrades the flesh from an unwary traveler, is that a cleansing to be revered too?

Inquiry 2: How many fish (freshwater vs saltwater) were preserved on this mythological ark? How many cetaceans? Are they not "animals?".

[Major Nikon]

37. There are some Christians who believe in the inerrant word of the bible

For them the bible is all true and if there’s any such conflicts with reality, hocus pocus is the explanation.

Then there’s Christians who understand there’s quite a bit of mythology in the bible so they parse out what they don’t want by picking and choosing what they want to believe.

Then there’s those who want to have it both ways. They reconcile the contradictions and departures from reality as “metaphors” and if they don’t make sense, then it’s only because you don’t understand what the anonymous authors thousands of years ago were saying, but they do.

Of the three approaches, the last seems to require the highest level of delusion.

[sprinkleeninow]

150. Aw man, how in tarnation did I miss this one? 🤔

You expressed yourself. It may have been in a way offending believers. We're freakin delusional. Thanx for that. It doesn't hurt or offend.

[Major Nikon]

153. You are working too hard to be offended

There’s a difference between holding a belief that requires delusion and being in a psychotic state.

If you don’t understand my words or meanings, you might want to ask or consult a dictionary rather than jumping to conclusions.

Definition of delusion
1a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
under the delusion that they will finish on schedule
delusions of grandeur
b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary
the delusion that someone was out to hurt him

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

[sprinkleeninow]

154. You were easily offended by mild characterizations as being a definer,

fundamentalist, literalist, and so on. [I forgot--intolerant.]

Which is hardly derisive compared to saying believers are delusional.

I'm not offended. But other believers may take offense. I expect this from non-believers actually.

[Major Nikon]

155. You have deluded yourself into believing that

I merely pointed out your buddy resorts to name calling and as proof I pointed out the names he has called myself and others after you asked about it. Contrast this with your buddy’s false allegations of name calling where he can’t manage to back up his false allegations with the names he was allegedly called and plays the victim by whining incessantly about it.

Meanwhile I corrected you about taking my words out of context and using them improperly, yet still you insist on doing so. Very telling that.

[sprinkleeninow]

157. I stand corrected. I AM delusional, but not in the way you have defined me.

I wrongly assumed reasoned dialogue in here. But no.

I'm delusional.🙃

[sprinkleeninow]

158. I'm just a soul....

[link:

|

[Major Nikon]

161. Then you should act that way

When I politely explain how you took my words the wrong way along with taking the time to explain why, continuing to do so does not project good intentions. It starts to look more like your buddy, which is exactly why he doesn’t get a warm reception around here.

[sprinkleeninow]

162. Sir/ma'am!, yes sir/ma'am!

[Major Nikon]

159. There's nothing reasonable about purposely taking words out of context

So let’s not pretend otherwise. Fair enough?

[sprinkleeninow]

160. I'll cowboy up from here out! Fair enuff.

[Pinky Promise.]:

"What goes up the chimney?"
Smoke.

"What comes down the chimney?"
Santa Claus

"I hope your wish and my wish will never be broken."

[tymorial]

176. The OP's religious postulates do seem to follow a predictable course

He definitely gets himself worked up everytime he posits his religious

[MineralMan]

20. Cleansing through massive genocide?

What a concept! A recurring theme in history. Burn the fields, but save a few seeds. Destroy all life, but put a few creatures on a boat. A new experiment.

Nice deity you have there. A terrific metaphor for monstrous cruelty. Yay God! Let's act just like him, shall we? And so we have, again and again. Brilliant!

[marylandblue]

21. Well you defined this thread as a Christian Study, so sure, whatever, knock yourself out.

But secular scholars look at it through the lens of literary criticism, and find other meanings that are less flattering to the God of the Bible.

[Major Nikon]

26. Looks more like a sermon than a study

Especially given if you disagree you are called a "definer", ignorant of history, a "biblical literalist", or a "fundamentalist" all intended to be pejorative.

Ironically all the supporting references given take exactly that approach yet somehow we must arrive at a station in the opposite direction.

[Lordquinton]

28. So says the official definer of the Bible?

You see, if what you claim were true, and all believers bowed to your commandments, then there would be no issues. But they don't. In fact there are groups that deny climate change because of God's promise to never flood the world again, that's where the actually real issue is.

And you're more concerned about your own personal beliefs than fighting against the ones that are literally killing people. You are giving cover to the bad guys.

[Voltaire2]

29. Double down on a stupid bet

gets you deeper in debt.

[trotsky]

31. If gil is anything, it's predictable.

It's been his downfall every single time.

[trotsky]

30. Those are simply opinions.

None of them more valid than the belief that the flood described in Genesis was a real, actual flood that covered the entire earth and killed all people and animals except those that got on a giant wooden boat.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Was this before or after they stole the story from Gilgamesh?

[Major Nikon]

38. Much if not most biblical stories were plagiarized from other mythologies

Yet some try to convince us of “deeper” meanings that inevitably comes from people who are very deep into their delusions. If anyone dares to point these things out, they are called names in lieu of anything remotely approaching a rational argument.

So yeah, it isn’t hard to spot the intellectual bankruptcy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

116. On the topic of intellectual bankruptcy...

...consider the title of this OP.

"A Christian perspective" on the intended symbolism of a story written five hundred to a thousand years before their lord and savior miracled himself into alleged existence.

Welcome to Christendom, folks. Where we steal your shit and then tell you what it should mean to you.

[Major Nikon]

117. Definers!

Argle-bargle

[MineralMan]

35. From your first link:

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible.

Is Jack Wellman a highly respected theologian? Is he a noted Biblical scholar? No, he's a pastor of a small town church in Kansas. He contributes blog articles to Patheos. He also doesn't reinforce your "Noah's flood is a metaphor for purification and cleansing" meme.

If that flood is a metaphor, it is more a metaphor for ethnic and racial cleansing - euphemisms for genocide. Was that what you meant?

[Major Nikon]

39. Obviously you just don't understand and are a definer

[MineralMan]

40. So be it, then.

I guess I was expecting links to noted theologians and analysts. Instead, we see country preachers and bloggers.

But, I suppose religionnews.com and Patheos are easy to search if you're looking for random support for stuff.

Disappointing, though.

[Major Nikon]

41. It does demonstrate the hazards of parroting out sermons

All it really proves is some people live in an intellectual bubble where critics are dismissed with name calling.

[MineralMan]

42. Well, it's possible to find support from established theologians

for almost any religious point of view, but one has to look for it. It's much easier to find that stuff on popular religious blog sites. There's more of it, it's less academic in nature, and you can generally find quotable statements to copy and paste in the first paragraphs of such postings.

If you don't care who wrote something or their qualifications, you can support almost any argument with links from some website or another.

Some people have their favorite religious blog sites, with hundreds of posts by authors of various backgrounds. Many of those sites are open to pretty much anyone who wishes to post on them. It's pretty easy to sign up to be an author on most such sites. I signed up on a couple of them, just to see if they cared who posts on them. Nope. I didn't intend to post, but they'd be happy to publish my rambling thoughts.

Citing "authorities" to support a wackdoodle idea is a classic strategy. Few will examine the credentials of your source. The Internet contains "experts" on everything, most of them soi disant experts, of course.

For example, the author of the second excerpt in the OP above, Michael Krauszer, is a "Ministerial Assistant," whatever that is. He also styles himself a "Social Media Manager" at some small church. I went to that person's LinkedIn page. Turns out he has a BA in English, just like me. No divinity school education, and not even an actual ordained minister. Hardly a theologian or expert on matters Biblical.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-krauszer-a51a9aa8/

[sprinkleeninow]

45. Ground Control to The Major dot dot dot

Ima working on my answer to you from a previous post regarding literalist v. allegory.
I've been a mess the whole of November and I got a bottleneck/log jam.

One thing--some of youse guys respond in harsh derision to 'answers' provided by 'others', then complain there's no reasoned and civil discourse. My words.

Youse appear to seek answers then shoot down the respondent.

Quote--All it really proves is some people live in an intellectual bubble where critics are dismissed with name calling.--Unquote.

Plus, it was put out above that 'we' God believers should shutty about Him and His and fix the horrid destruction wrought by 'those' who supposedly follow Him and His precepts.

Which is exactly what some of us are doing. But not as some of y'all expect or fast enuff.

On edit:
Yours truly,
Folksy Country Bumpkin

[Major Nikon]

52. Depends on what qualifies as an answer

When a question is asked and someone continuously responds with condescension, name calling, and other various forms of nonsense in a deliberate attempt to avoid the question, at some point you begin to expect such hostility.

Might be worth asking the aforementioned respondent why he responds that way. As a followup question you can ask why he then asks like a victim when someone points these things out.

[sprinkleeninow]

87. Name calling? That evades me. I don't recall name calling.

You see someone from the other side acting the victim? Can you understand that 'we' may come across as defensive at times, that is, defending the Faith we hold?

Some of the atheists also become defensive in responses according to their stance.

At times it appears that 'some' have no intention of seeking understanding from the 'other' side, only contention.

[Major Nikon]

89. Here's a few from just recently

I was called intolerant, a fundamentalist, a biblical literalist, and a definer all of which carried the context of a pejorative. The same name caller also frequently makes baseless accusations and frequently plays the victim even alleging the same behavior. For instance name calling is frequently alleged, but when asked for the name that was called you get <crickets> as a response or just more baseless accusations.

This isn’t defensive behavior. When it happens frequently and against multiple people who hold opposing viewpoints the explanation isn’t hard to figure out. It’s not as if those who lack religious privilege don’t see it all the time.

[sprinkleeninow]

91. What's this 'lacking religious privilege'. I don't understand.

I need sleep.😴

[Major Nikon]

95. Understandably so

Because you also have it.

[sprinkleeninow]

99. It's not a frackin' PRIVILEGE. It's something that was presented to me at forty days

landed on earth and I accept it to this day in my imperfection. I had the 'choice' to embrace it or walk away. My Faith makes 'sense' to me. I can't see myself without it.

Yeah, the Faith of our forbears has been perverted in circles, but no reason for me to chuck it.

Did Lazarus 'sleep' and then he was awaken? No, he was flat out dead for three days and resurrected. The parallel being a foreshadowing of Christ's three days in the tomb resurrection.

If one does not believe in supernatural miracle working, then this an absurd conclusion. I get that.

[Major Nikon]

103. Lots of people who have privilege can't see themselves without it

Thats the problem with privilege.

[sprinkleeninow]

105. You soitenly have a knack.

Here's sumpthin'. I gotta rack, hit the sack. See ya back here later today?

[link:http://www.stspyridon.org.au/ourFaith.php?articleId=149&subMenu=Orthodoxy|

[marylandblue]

125. Well that's a better explanation than anything Gil wrote or linked to

I guess it pays to have a real theologian working for you.

[sprinkleeninow]

133. I got lost in the shuffle. 🤕

Mistakenly thot 'twas the major responding.

Apologies.

We good?



'Some' people frown upon googly faces and smilie emojicons in this place. 😂

[marylandblue]

144. Yes we're good. The emos don't bother me.

[sprinkleeninow]

146. Somebody gets a tad bummed out.

Yours truly,
Visiting Folksy Country Bumpkin

[sprinkleeninow]

156. More: Eastern Orthodox-'Meaning or Meanings of Scripture'

[link:https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/meaning-or-meanings-of-scripture|

[sprinkleeninow]

134. You have a privilege. Being allowed to speak to me. 😝 JK!!1

Lighten up! I luv ya!

[sprinkleeninow]

93. Hold the wire. I gotta be alert for the a.m. Lawn people are coming to dig a hole.

Lemme haul out my Book of Scripture and see if I can come up with a little something, something.

[Mariana]

118. Either none of that counts as namecalling

or it isn't worthy of recollection.

"Name calling? That evades me. I don't recall name calling."

Isn't it funny how often shitty behavior doesn't even register, if the person engaging in it is a co-religionist?

[Major Nikon]

120. Giving a pass to shitty behavior is part of the privilege

The examples aren’t hard to find. Everything from the “war on Christmas” to giving a pass for child rape qualifies.

[guillaumeb]

127. What an interesting response.

And revealing.

[Major Nikon]

128. You reveal more of the same behavior

As if more examples were needed

[guillaumeb]

129. tu quoque fallacy in evidence.

Taking a break from ad hominem?

[Major Nikon]

130. Bullshit

[marylandblue]

131. Latin should be banned from the English language

[guillaumeb]

137. ita verro.

D'accord.

Si.

All latin languages, or just Latin?

[marylandblue]

141. Just Latin

French has been banned since the Seven Years War. Spanish is acceptable because we welcome immigration from our neighbors to the south.

[guillaumeb]

142. I think that I might detect a bit of humor here.

But I have been wrong before. Many times, in fact.

[marylandblue]

143. Yes, it's humorous, and stems from my love-hate relationship with Latin

Which I took in high school but found difficult. So now I believe that Latinisms should be pre-translated into English to avoid triggering the traumatized.

[sprinkleeninow]

147. I loved it. Considered teaching it while it was still fashionable.

Back in the ages.

[guillaumeb]

164. Is there a name for this Latin-ophobia? eom

[marylandblue]

178. Latinikaphobia, a term that has the advantage of being entirely in Greek

[guillaumeb]

180. You caught the use if the Greek word.

[sprinkleeninow]

135. You not lumpin' me in with those things, are ye?

[guillaumeb]

138. Wellllllllllllllllllll

I cannot interpret what another means, but a plain text interpretation might lead one to believe that you are correct.

[sprinkleeninow]

136. Howsabout when the Major gets a pass? 😚

[guillaumeb]

139. Ooooh my!!!

Strike 2.

[marylandblue]

171. It's New Atheism, which takes a dim view of religion

On of Richard Dawkins' books is even called "The God Delusion," so you can see where that line of thinking comes from.

[sprinkleeninow]

173. The label of being afflicted with delusion regarding 'religion', all things God and Scripture, annnd

especially Christ does not rattle me. It's expected.

I am who I am and have confidence in my spirituality regardless.

[sprinkleeninow]

132. Oh, THAT name calling. Why would the term 'definer' burn so?

[guillaumeb]

140. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!

Strike 3.

Names do matter, as do tactics.

[sprinkleeninow]

148. Definer is mild for Simonopetra's sake. Gees louise.

Oh my dog.

When we get dissed for believing, the words are not spoken but subliminally worse.

[marylandblue]

145. From context, Gil appears to be using it as a pejorative

Since he implies that there is something wrong with defining your terms consistently and insisting that.others be consistent as well.

[guillaumeb]

165. We all define our own views.

But if any one insists that only one interpretation is correct, and rejects others as "bullshit", that person is defining things.

[marylandblue]

172. Let me fix that for you "We all define our views"

But I define that if anyone insists that only one interpretation is correct, and rejects others as "bullshit" that person is defining things."

[pangaia]

152. Did Jesus literally dance with his diciples at the Last Supper?

[Act_of_Reparation]

163. Damn right, he did.

Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

[guillaumeb]

167. I was not there.

Existing evidence, in the form of video, is currently unable to be accessed by us in 2018.


I was not there. I am old, but not that old.

[pangaia]

168. Well you were not there for the ressurection either.

[guillaumeb]

169. True.

But I read about it.

[pangaia]

170. I read the Lord of the Rings, but it never happened.

[guillaumeb]

174. Are you certain?

[marylandblue]

175. Are you not?

[muriel_volestrangler]

177. "Water ... was used to literally cleanse the earth away from all that was evil and unholy"

Hmmm, that 2nd source doesn't seem to regard the story as a 'metaphor', what with that 'literally' there. Still, we woudln't want to define the guy, so maybe we should look for what else he's written on the subject.

It’s so significant, matter of fact that God specifically told us what it means and why he created it.
...
So, next time you see a rainbow in the sky, remember back to that Genesis story. It’s truly amazing to think that, to this day, God is still reminding us of what he did so long ago on this earth. It can provide us with comfort, knowing that even after a terrible storm, God can and will be with us.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/12/09/what-does-a-rainbow-mean-in-the-bible/

'God Did It'. And is responsible for the story that says so. And is sending a message with each rainbow you see.

[struggle4progress]

179. "Here is a book written by arid-desert dwellers! What could water possibly have meant to them?

Why in the world did they use metaphors like water-of-life? Mysteriouser and mysteriouser!"

[guillaumeb]

181. And Hell was seena s a place of fire.

While Hel, to the Norse, was a place of cold.

[struggle4progress]

182. Some say the world will end in fire

Some say in ice

From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire

But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
to say that for destruction ice
is also great
and would suffice

-- Robert Frost

[guillaumeb]

183. A fitting ending for this subthread. eom