Biblical morality/relevance? Noah

[Gone Apostate]

This is about one of the worst stories of them all, Noah and the flood.

I realize this may be an exhausted topic for some of the more active apologists, and disbelievers alike, but I hope some will find it worth a read, and a comment.

Since this is a discussion of the morality/relevance of this story we don’t need to get too much in to the logistic arguments for or against the possibility of the flood. Let’s just assume it could have happened. Noah, his family and the preserved samples of all species on the ark survive but EVERYTHING, everyone else, dies horrifically. Children, infants, kittens everything. The thought of any child panicked and gasping for air is monstrous, but all the children of existing humanity?

I have a really hard time with this one. There are other gems in the Bible, but the flood makes my top 5 for sure. I will be less antagonistic on most topics but on this one it’s difficult to strike even the pretense of objectivity. It might have to do with the fact that I personally took part in the teaching of this story to my children, and other children, toddlers on up.

This is one of the first stories children learn. This is the one that invariably is depicted in cheery cartoon scenes. We teach children that God’s morality is perfect while also teaching that he was directly responsible for the closest to complete genocide ever to occur. They are too young to question so they simply accept that it makes sense that some people deserve to die, if they are wicked enough.

What is the moral lesson here? Death is better than wickedness? Was God sparing those innocent children before they could be corrupted? I really would like someone’s perspective on this one. Is this defensible? If so, how?

Secondly, is there anything to take from this story that is relevant to us today? If so how do you apply the lessons of this story in your life?

I look forward to your comments, I really hope people are willing to participate in a discussion on this one, sooner or later.

Little Mormon trivia from an LDS apostate:
According to Mormon Doctrine Noah was also the angel Gabriel. Gabriel lived his earthly life as Noah.

Little belated Mormon trivia that should have gone with last post:
According to Mormon Doctrine the Garden of Eden was actually located in present day Missouri. The references to Ethiopia and the Euphrates River, is explained by these landmarks being located there prior to the super continent Pangaea being split up buy the great flood (so I guess it’s a little topical) and the renaming of geographic areas and landmarks after.

I guess this brings up a bonus question. For someone to believe in this Eden revelation by Joseph Smith, doesn’t the flood have to be a literal, historical account? If it was more metaphorical how then would the names be preserved? I can see how the creation story might be allegorical and therefore not present a challenge to a faithful LDS member that also accepts the science of evolution, but this little tidbit doesn’t seem to work the same way. This one seems to pretty much require a young earth theory. If I am wrong in this, I preemptively apologize and I look forward to being set straight.

Thank you for making it through all that. I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.

[johnmarc]

What is the moral lesson here? Death is better than wickedness? Was God sparing those innocent children before they could be corrupted? I really would like someone’s perspective on this one. Is this defensible? If so, how?

Secondly, is there anything to take from this story that is relevant to us today? If so how do you apply the lessons of this story in your life?

I call myself Christian because I take the metaphors and analogies of the Bible seriously. I don't take them literally. If we can accept this as the storyteller's art and quit fussing over how many innocent babies died in the Flood, we can begin to at least look for meaningful applications.

I look at this story as an example of just how hard it is to be all we claim to be or all that we should be. In this example, Noah was all that he should have been. The numbers of human beings loaded onto the Ark represent the numbers of 'perfect' human beings. The numbers are so low that it begs the question, "Am I one of them? The answer is clearly and certainly not.

The Catholic church turns too many ordinary folk into saints. Saints (like Noah) are far more rare than that. A Jewish tradition holds that the Messiah will come when one Jewish male has followed the law for 24 straight hours. We are less than we claim to be---less than we should be---less than God wants us to be.

When I tell myself that I have screwed up and fallen well short of my goals, The story of the Ark, tells me that I am in good company---don't beat yourself up---get up and get started again.

[Gone Apostate]

When I tell myself that I have screwed up and fallen well short of my goals, The story of the Ark, tells me that I am in good company---don't beat yourself up---get up and get started again.

Thank you for sharing that. It’s a really interesting take on the story that I haven’t heard before. In fact I think that it is about the most positive application I have ever heard. I am not about to argue with you on such a positive interpretation unless you are interested in how I think it doesn't quite work but let me just say I think its a stretch to make it work that way but i like it none-the-less.

There are other things that I would prefer to ask you if you have time/inclination to continue...

So you don’t take it literally. That’s a great place to start.

Question 1. Do you think the morality is different if it’s literal or not? You don’t think the story is ‘real’ but I imagine you think that the God of the story is. Taking you interpretation; What does it say about God that he teaches us about our imperfections with a story where His own morality is so terribly flawed?

Question 2. You say not all of the Bible should be taken literally. I assume that you think some of it is literal or you wouldn’t call yourself a Christian. If this story isn’t literally true which ones are? Do we even know? Is it as simple as the Old Testament shouldn’t be taken literally, but the New Testament should?

Finally, and this is a side topic so take it or leave it because it doesn’t address YOUR beliefs specifically. - Do participate in an organized church? If so how do they teach this story to the children there? I have yet to go to a primary class in any denomination that teaches it as metaphorical. They always talk about Moses, Noah, Adam as if they were real people. If they do teach it as real how do you address that with your kids, or would you if you had some. Would you simply tell them it's just a story with a good lesson? Would you instill that skepticism in them early on so they can sort through what's real and what's not in future classes?

Thanks again for sharing!

[johnmarc]

I belong to a liberal Presbyterian church in liberal Western Washington State (PCUSA). I became a member with the clear understanding that I took the Resurrection of Christ to be mythology---important and live altering mythology, but mythology nevertheless. Yes, the little kids are taught that the whole thing is real, but by Junior Hi and High School, the teachers admit to having an 'incomplete understanding' and a 'not clearly knowing' all of the answers as they pertain to God and miracles. There is a great deal of personal latitude.

My own kids grew up with a sense that each story was real. Now they are adults. they no longer believe that. It didn't seem to harm them any.

At least two Presbyterian churches in Tacoma and First Methodist clearly teach the Bible as symbols to live by and not literal/factual events. Obviously the Unitarian Universalist church in Tacoma is a symbols church. My previous program director and a collegue from my work came from the same Lutheran church in Tacoma and by happenstance the subject of the Bible came up. One said that he never had a sense that anything in the Bible was to be taken literally. The other said that there never was a time when she thought that it was not to be taken literally. Obviously, the pastor was walking a tightrope. That is pretty commonplace around here.

A literal Bible is a deficient, contradictory, and confusing set of mixed messages. No, I do not believe that the God of the Bible is real. The Bible is a record of the Western World's search for God. Hinted at but never found. What remains are the searches and we are to interpret those searches in a manner which brings the greatest good to ourselves and others.

I once belonged to a group which was mostly retired pastors. (in Seattle) They were taking it upon themselves (now retired and safe) to claim that what they taught and what they ministered was far different from what they had come to believe in their close association with the Bible over so many years. They had come to side with most mainstream theologians who for many and various reasons could not take the Bible literally. It is difficult to immerse oneself in the Bible and come away with a literal/inerrant interpretation.

Jeremiah 22: 15,16

"Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me?" says the Lord.

If this quote from the Bible were to be taken literally, it says that God does not need to be addressed providing we are doing the work of God. This verse is virtually unknown among our literal/inerrant friends. It is the proof text of progressive religion.

I think it doesn't quite work but let me just say I think its a stretch to make it work that way but i like it none-the-less.

And yes, tell me why it doesn't work for you.

It may be that your interpretation of this event is different than mine. It may be that it carries a different message to you. It may well be that the Bible doesn't speak to you at all. In that case, you might find your 'sense of completeness' in another religion, in literature, in a particular activity, in nature. God is not so narrow that His message is carried along one narrow pathway.

I am lucky/unlucky enough to see myself in every story. I have died, and been reborn a different person in God while not believing a single word of it. As my wife says, "The Bible is not about God, it is about each human being flailing around lost and searching for answers which are there if one knows how to look for them.

I have discovered where to look. Look between the lines.

[Gone Apostate]

i just spent an hour typing a reply and lost it when I went to post because i had gotten logged out. I won't let that happen again but I'm going to have to take a little longer getting back to you. Thanks for your patience.

[johnmarc]

i just spent an hour typing a reply and lost it when I went to post because i had gotten logged out. I won't let that happen again but I'm going to have to take a little longer getting back to you. Thanks for your patience.

Yeah, I had the same thing happen to me once. I have been called into work this morning and won't be available today anyway. Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks.

[Jrosemary]

Secondly, is there anything to take from this story that is relevant to us today? If so how do you apply the lessons of this story in your life?

Oooh! Oooh! Pick me to answer this second question!

Yes--this story had amazing relevance--at least for me personally, and in a very "Jewish" way.

I had a job that involved working with some tough kids--kids that had miserable home lives, kids that were cutting or burning themselves, kids that had already been to juvie. I was overwhelmed and I saw no option but to quit. I planned to do so the next day.

But I went to a special event at the Jewish Museum in NYC that night--the event was about the Dreyfus Affair. There was a lecture before the new exhibit was introduced. The speaker--some lawyer--didn't say much about Dreyfus. He spoke about Noah instead, because that happened to be the Torah portion of the week according to the Jewish liturgical calendar.

I will never forget his words. I'd probably heard them before, because they express a common sentiment in Judaism. But they hit me hard that night!

He said, "Traditionally, we Jews have never been happy with Noah. Why? Because the Jewish response to human suffering has never been to huddle in a boat and ride out the storm!"

(Huddling in a boat and riding out the storm is not any religious group's response to human suffering, of course, but he was talking to a room full of Jews.)

To this day, it's hard for me to express how much impact his words had on me. Of course I'd heard Noah and G-d criticized before--every year when this Torah portion comes up, in fact. Everyone in Torah study picks on Noah and G-d.

And we're a liberal shul; most of us don't take the story literally and we like reading the antecedents from other cultures. But we read it seriously, and so our critiques of G-d and Noah are serious.

But it was the right time for me to hear those words about Noah, and to realize that I had no business "huddling in a boat and riding out the storm." I went back to work and never thought about resigning again. I stayed the length of the job (one year.) And I've never regretted it.

[Gone Apostate]

I belong to a liberal Presbyterian church in liberal Western Washington State (PCUSA). I became a member with the clear understanding that I took the Resurrection of Christ to be mythology---important and live altering mythology, but mythology nevertheless.

First of all let me say that I LOVE western Washington. I lived on the Kitsap Peninsula for four years while attached to a Sub out of Bangor.

Secondly, Wow.
I’m experiencing a moment of “how ignorant am I?� excluding the Unitarians, I haven’t heard of very many people calling themselves Christian while at the same time relegating the resurrection/atonement story to a myth - and here you talk about three congregations within the same general area that allow for that liberal of an interpretation. I have always said that there are as many different faiths as there are faithful but I still was unprepared for that.

Question: Why then DO you consider yourself a Christian? I would call you an agnostic more than a Christian (you know, if I got to determine how you should consider yourself – Ha!) If it’s myth, why is it so much better than other myths that you would associate yourself if not exclusively, primarily, with it as opposed to other traditions? Why identify with it at all? Why not just pursue truth and wisdom where ever it may be found? You say that all the stories speak to you in one way or another. I’m sure that can’t be exclusive to the Bible, What about Shakespeare or Twain, or Dickens, or the Quran or the teachings of Budda?

I read A History of God by Karen Armstrong and in the final chapter she makes the case for the future of religion by saying that religions have value because they represent a path to ‘enlightenment’ that is rooted in an understanding of the human spirit that has developed over hundreds and thousands of years. Basically she was saying we there is benefit to the process of religious observance and faith separate from the foundational ‘truth’ of it. Is it something like this that motivates your religious observances?

I once belonged to a group which was mostly retired pastors. (in Seattle) They were taking it upon themselves (now retired and safe) to claim that what they taught and what they ministered was far different from what they had come to believe in their close association with the Bible over so many years. They had come to side with most mainstream theologians who for many and various reasons could not take the Bible literally. It is difficult to immerse oneself in the Bible and come away with a literal/inerrant interpretation.

Daniel Dennett and Linda Lascola collaborated on some research into this idea of agnostic religious leaders:
Story: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2309/qa-danie ... da-lascola
Paper:http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... WkECLGuSjg

Doesn’t it say something that once these men (mostly men I assume) in your group and here in this exploration by Dennett, learned that the Bible was so flawed they felt compelled to continue to teach it as if it were not? How many people hang their faith on the expertise of their pastor/priest when facing questions about the ‘truth’ of their doctrines? Isn’t it telling that they had to be “safely� in retirement to be able to be candid about their biblical scholarship? If it’s demonstrably flawed why can’t we teach, study, learn from it in that way? So as to more easily separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. Wouldn’t everyone be better off if they weren’t trying to round the square with stories like Noah? Shouldn’t the pastors be able to get up and say the Bible is as you and I agree it is:

Do you think the Bible to be scared? Or at least more sacred then other books? If so, why?

And yes, tell me why it doesn't work for you.

It may be that your interpretation of this event is different than mine. It may be that it carries a different message to you. It may well be that the Bible doesn't speak to you at all. In that case, you might find your 'sense of completeness' in another religion, in literature, in a particular activity, in nature. God is not so narrow that His message is carried along one narrow pathway.

I am lucky/unlucky enough to see myself in every story. I have died, and been reborn a different person in God while not believing a single word of it. As my wife says, "The Bible is not about God, it is about each human being flailing around lost and searching for answers which are there if one knows how to look for them.

I have discovered where to look. Look between the lines.

I think what you said about reading between the lines is absolutely perfect. I think it’s a stretch because I think that you making the story into something other than what is written and you have to ignore some pretty key issues to do it.

1. The character of God in the story is something I have ask for interpretations on twice. However you consider this story, mythological or literal it has to be considered as a lesson about God as much as it is a lesson for us. Especially if you are going to tie it into something like a commentary about “falling short of the perfect being God want s me to be.� This story established God fictional or otherwise, as about as wicked a being as I can imagine. Why is this a God who’s morality we should consider perfect.
2. There is no indication (at least in the KJV) that the family of Noah found any special favor in God, in fact it seems pretty clear that it was Noah exclusively that was favored. (thee not they) the theme seems to be that they got spared as a favor to Noah and for the same reason the beasts did, repopulation. So your stand that the number of perfect people was equal to the number of people on the ark is something you are projecting into the story.

I really like your interpretation; I want to be clear about that. It’s unique, in my experience and the message of community in our flawed humanity is by far the most positive take away from it that I have ever heard. I would never suggest that I get to determine what you should take away from this story but I think that we can say you are reading a lot into those spaces between the lines. If I were sharing the tale of Little Red Riding Hood as a lesson on oral hygiene, I could defend it (what big teeth you have), but it’s not the intended or primary moral of the story. What is the primary moral could be interpreted differently, sure (don’t talk to strangers, be wary and careful, be skeptical when things don’t seem right, or make friends with an attentive woodsman) but it would be “a stretch� to say the story was about brushing your teeth.

I think that the great message of support and human solidarity you get from the story of Noah is easier and less encumbered where it is actually written - inside you. Trying to make it fit in a story of a vengeful and murderous God only bogs it down with, and lends credence to, the less inspiring parts by association.

Do we not know enough about the good parts of the Bible that we can extract them for what they are and let them stand on their own? Can we not, should we not, put the Bible on the self with other ancient philosophies and myths, and consider it as we do them - wisdom muddled with ancient understandings and traditions?

[johnmarc]

Oooh! Oooh! Pick me to answer this second question!

Yes--this story had amazing relevance--at least for me personally, and in a very "Jewish" way.

And this should be the most important consideration for Christians. Does the story continue to have relevance? Does it still resonate with culture? Jrosemary uses the story to benefit her life, johnmarc does the same. Each interpretation is different---vastly different. But the point remains---these stories are useless unless they are making a positive difference in mankind.

The whole point that Goddidit is entirely beside the point. The story means nothing to God. God is not benefitted by an entire culture pointing a finger at God and claiming that God actually is big enough to do all of this. You go God!

Rather, have the authors of the Bible, spiritually motivated by God, created a vehicle whereby Christians can travel the road to self sufficiency? Does this particular vehicle move folks along in a positive direction? Yes to johnmarc and yes to Jrosemary. Yes to thousands of others who are not mired in the 'protect Jesus and God at all costs' The story is about 'us' to 'us' and for 'us'. It is to benefit us, not God who does not need mankind to benefit Him at all.

My sense is that each effort to 'prove' God and to 'protect' God only serves to embarrass God. Make the stories work for you.

[Kuan]

Why identify with it at all? Why not just pursue truth and wisdom where ever it may be found? You say that all the stories speak to you in one way or another. I’m sure that can’t be exclusive to the Bible, What about Shakespeare or Twain, or Dickens, or the Quran or the teachings of Budda?

I have a real fast comment on this part of your post Gone Apostate. Im not sure who else would agree with me either. I also would like to know what johnmarc thinks of this.

I believe the bible contains most truths and wisdom that we can find. Just because the bible is that way does not limit me from seeking truth, wisdom, and knowledge elsewhere. For example, im here on this forum right now. It also means that the Quran, Dickens, anything can have truth and wisdom in it.