The Bible is obvious mythology

The question no Christian can answer is why the Bible says rainbows are God’s special symbol to us, and not just a natural phenomenon. If God created rainbows AFTER the flood, then this means he re-created physics itself to change the way light refracts. Which is unnecessary if he’s God and can just place rainbows in the sky as he pleases. But we see incomplete rainbows, double rainbows, and of course, most of the time there is no rainbow at all. And we see how light refracts without the rain, such as through a glass window or mist of water sprayed in the sunlight. Whoever wrote the Bible apparently didn’t understand this, and attributed rainbows to God’s intelligent design. Which is no different than attributing lightning to the wrath of Zeus. It’s no wonder humans invented such explanations. That’s why literally every human culture has religion of some kind. It’s just in our nature to invent religions. And it’s no surprise that some religions evolved to be more convincing than others, but they all still have flaws, and are laden with primitive misunderstandings. It’s time to put it away for good.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    A rainbow is where our star, the sun, which normally produces insivible light becomes visible by the prism of the rain and the sky in all of its hidden colors. When God's (the sun) works of mercy (rain) are made known (rainbow) then you see His love for us. It's debateable if Noah's flood is historical but the metaphor is solid - the other thing you're missing a some myths are better than others and the best, perfect that is, myth is infinitely better than a really great one. It's why Adam and Eve analyses are so fun.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      nice try, but the purpose of the rainbow is explicitly said to be a covenant not to flood the earth again. Even as a metaphor, it’s not very clear what this means, and why God would choose to create his book (and the world) in this way, when he could have done otherwise. It’s almost as if God WANTS us to think his religion was just invented by humans who were scientifically ignorant. Again, there are plenty of other religions that have their own myths that can be defended with the metaphor excuse. So the very obviously likely explanation here is that it’s all made-up

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        no, it was that particular instance of a rainbow that was a special sign of covenant. why are you people so autistic?

        the real contradiction is why a prophet chosen by God apparently saw it fit to curse his grandson for something his father did (Ham, Canaan). now how is that justice?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >but the purpose of the rainbow is explicitly said to be a covenant
          Have you read any theology or a Bible commentary? Your hyper literalist reading is entirely antithetical to the entire Biblical analytic corpus unless you're talking about the Talmudists and the Protestants (who are wrong) and then you are correct. St. Augustine would be really confused with your stance and so would Sts. Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman or Teresa of Avila or Bonaventure or basically all of them. I'm not trying to be rude but it's painfully evident you are looking for an "in" on how you have figured out a "esoteric contradiction" when most theology is apparently contradictory to normal human logic and logic literally ascends to understand dogma when it is Catholic dogma otherwise logic descends to meet it.

          >After the Flood, God made an everlasting covenant with Noah, his family, their descendants, and all the living creatures. He promised never again to destroy the earth by a flood. The rainbow was the sign of that promise – a reminder of God's commitment to the earth.
          There is no mention about what the phenomenon of a rainbow actually is, just that this particular rainbow was a sign.
          Aren't you clever with your asinine "but ASCKTHUALLY a rainbow is a natural phenomenon whereby light blablabla" take. What is this, 2010 reddit?

          so basically these posts op. please stop your simple minded forced literalist attempts at counter signaling the bible. this stuff isnt taken seriously even by negative critical historicist interpretations of the bible

          now can any christian please explain why noah cursed his grandson canaan who didnt even do anything to him, and why God let this be a staple in bible lore

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >cursed his grandson canaan who didnt even do anything to him
            Look at some commentaries - Catena Aurea or the general Gloss or the Sacra Pagina and see. New Collegeville Bible Commentary was recommended by a good priest I know.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            please explain it to me because every commentary ive seen gave non, bullshit, or stupid answers

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            for instance New Collegeville Bible Commentary says picrel

            is this the standard we go on? missing stories justify an incoherent passage? this might as well validate every other apocrypha that exists.

            sometimes clinging to christianity is difficult when a supposed holy book is full of actual bullshit like this

            (the rainbow as op narrowly sees it is easily explainable, hes just an autist trying to force an issue)

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but the purpose of the rainbow is explicitly said to be a covenant
        Have you read any theology or a Bible commentary? Your hyper literalist reading is entirely antithetical to the entire Biblical analytic corpus unless you're talking about the Talmudists and the Protestants (who are wrong) and then you are correct. St. Augustine would be really confused with your stance and so would Sts. Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman or Teresa of Avila or Bonaventure or basically all of them. I'm not trying to be rude but it's painfully evident you are looking for an "in" on how you have figured out a "esoteric contradiction" when most theology is apparently contradictory to normal human logic and logic literally ascends to understand dogma when it is Catholic dogma otherwise logic descends to meet it.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Have you ever read anything remotely Christian other than the Bible? There is better “mythology” outside of the OT/NT.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There is better “mythology” outside of the OT/NT.
      Which? Greek is interesting but Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and whatever have you is far more interesting. Also, none of the NT is mythological or even metaphorical - it's literal and metaphor. To read it as myth is to say you haven't read it.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That was for the OP who thinks the Bible is just myth. I meant what is basically heretical stuff, apocrphya, angelology, that kind of thing.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Consider that it never rained before Noah's flood, so there had never been a rainbow before that first one. Therefore, God did not need to change the laws of physics to create the rainbow.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      God sent down rain to make the plants grow after he first created them. Read your Bible

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The question no Christian can answer is why the Bible says rainbows are God’s special symbol to us, and not just a natural phenomenon.

    Of all the burning questions one could come away with upon engaging our aging Book Overlord, with all its she bears mangling children, giants fricking humans, daughters fricking their fathers, fathers killing their sons, demonic pigs commiting suicide, heavenly wheels flying in the sky and men going up to heaven without further a word...

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >with all its she bears mangling childre
      ~~**~~

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    If someone taught atheists abstract thinking, we’d be in deep shit

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      if someone taught atheists abstract thinking and to think beyond their selfish egotism and their fear of a world beyond that which they can see or control, theyd just be religious.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >After the Flood, God made an everlasting covenant with Noah, his family, their descendants, and all the living creatures. He promised never again to destroy the earth by a flood. The rainbow was the sign of that promise – a reminder of God's commitment to the earth.
    There is no mention about what the phenomenon of a rainbow actually is, just that this particular rainbow was a sign.
    Aren't you clever with your asinine "but ASCKTHUALLY a rainbow is a natural phenomenon whereby light blablabla" take. What is this, 2010 reddit?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *