PDA

View Full Version : Noah's Ark


Pages : 1 [2]

stlrtruck
12-14-2009, 03:39 PM
I just wish they'd stop and go back to the old way. It was a miracle. Noah's Ark was a miracle. Creation was a miracle. That's all....you either believe it or you don't.

Even if they did, debates like this would continue because people would basically fall in to three categories:

1) I didn't see the miracle so I don't believe it
2) I saw the miracle and I believe it now
3) I did or didn't see it but I believe it by faith

Preacher
12-14-2009, 04:54 PM
Interesting turn since I've been away.

Christianity is better because it's different. And I'm going to Hell because I believe in God, but DO NOT believe I have to lay claim to the super exclusionary clause that the ONLY path to salvation is through Jesus Christ.

That's an unfair characterization of my argument. I state that Christianity is unique and cannot be considered the same as any other religion. That means it must be dealt with on its own, completely different than anything else.

I know how this will go from here...when I bring up all the people who existed BEFORE Jesus ever did, there will be yet another fairly rational sounding explanation of what is actually a far-fetched and fantastical idea concocted over all the years by the Church about how even those people can also be scooped up by Christianity at some point in the future.
So in other words, you are upset that Christianity makes sense? Let me interpret what you are really saying here.

What will happen next is I will ask about those who came before Christ. Christianity obviously will have an answer for that which actually will be a sound argument. However, since I HAVE ALREADY CONCLUDED that it MUST BE WRONG for personal reasons, I am going to say here and now, before those Christians have a chance to say anything, that it is a load of shit. (and thus, the reason I believe this has NOTHING to do with what you really think, but is a personal issue with you that you are battling... cause you KNOW what is right. It is eating away at you.. otherwise, why fight SO HARD against something you supposedly don't believe).

But the bottom line is, I was born and raised a Christian. I was SUPER indoctrinated with NOTHING but Christian dogma from the Methodist, Baptist, and, later in life, Catholic Church, pretty much from birth. I read more and more and more about it after my initial skepticism set in. I find the exclusionary nature of Christianity to be completely at odds with the God I have read and studied about IN ALL RELIGIONS, Christianity included. Which is COMPLETLY in contradiction to your first statement ridiculing my argument about the uniqueness of Christianity and Jesus Christ.

What's more, I find this new approach of attempting to fight fire with fire (e.g. Creating a new pseudo-science around creationism) repulsive. That is fine. I find it just as repulsive wrapping a philosophy around scientific observation and calling it evolution and then proving there isn't a God from there. That is EXACTLY the crackpot argument that is being made... and the assumptions from it.

Christians were better off just saying "It is what it is" than attempting to randomly select some principles of science (while rejecting others that "don't fit") in order to attempt to intellectualize their beliefs.
Why's that? Because its easier to objectify Christians and ridicule them when they look like ignorant rednecks and the more "enlightened" can look down on them? Sorry, the scientific drive of western culture, the higher education of western culture, the philosphical drive of western culture, all originated out of the church. Try to convince yourself all you want otherwise,
When I watch Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, I have a fairly good idea ahead of time how each myth will actually turn out. When the myths are completely dis-proven, that is pretty much it. I'd be more comfortable at the end of the show if they just said "Well, that myth LOOKS busted, but God could have had influence originally, and THAT created the myth, so it's plausible" rather then data being ignored or manipulated, or open to interpretation, or all the other little junk science tricks of the trade that the new fundamentalist Christians are attempting to do in order to legitimize their beliefs to a wider audience. You mean like forcing new finds into already held evolutionary beliefs, and then claiming that it proves evolution when in fact, all it does is prove that those doing it can rationalize pretty well? You mean like how the only observed points of science say that life must come from life, but that little fact is ignored and manipulated for evolution. You mean how those who do try to deal with that issue will actually believe it was ALIENS...yes ALIENS which started the human evolutionary chain, just to deny a creator God? Seems to me the ones trying to legitimize their beliefs to a wider audience here are the ones who are fighting hard to make themselves the highest judge of right and wrong.

Think about it. The Mythbusters could attempt to duplicate the fishes and the loaves, and there is absolutely no way in which they could EVER duplicate the results. Is the myth busted? Sure. But they could certainly add the caveat that a miracle could have occurred. OK, I buy that to a certain degree. But what is NOW happening is the fundies (read:literal interpreters of the bible) are now trying to make some kind of scientific case for how the laws of nature COULD have been manipulated so that the miracle could occur in purely scientific terms.
Nope. Not al all. Have to call you out on that one. Please provide me with source material to show what fundamentalist is trying to show how laws of nature were manipulated to provide fish and loaves in multiplication. You won't. Because that argument doesn't exist.

Furthermore, you are completely wrong about fundamentalists. I suggest you go back and do a little reading about what Christian fundamentalists believe and do. Because no fundamentalist would CARE about what science says. You are arguing completely from emotion here... just spewing around words because ... well, you are mad about something... and it isn't what fictional "fundamentalists" are doing.
I just wish they'd stop and go back to the old way. It was a miracle. Noah's Ark was a miracle. Creation was a miracle. That's all....you either believe it or you don't.

Because that way, its easier for you to ridicule it instead of having to deal with the fact that... Damn it, they may be right.

The more dismissive you are, the more you show that you are not convinced at all of what you are saying.

GoSlash27
12-14-2009, 06:53 PM
Stlrtruck,
And from a top level review, it may seem that the conflict exists in God's word. What it requires is for one to seek wisdom from within those Words. In layman's terms - you've got to drill down and read God's word, recognizing the writing styles of the times that the word was written.
Which just illustrates the point that writing styles and times are human constructs, not divine. Without directly supporting or refuting whether the Bible contains God's will, it still proves that the literal word of the Bible is human.

Preacher,
It is possible, and certainly in my belief it is true, that both the OT and NT represent the Will of God. Not proving fallacy between them but complimenting each other on the love, grace, mercy, peace, and comfort that can be found in the arms of the Almighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
I'll save my response until after I've had a chance to review your treatise. I didn't open it last night 'cuz I wasn't certain if it was from you (check your PM).
Hope all is well!

stlrtruck
12-15-2009, 08:49 AM
Stlrtruck,

Which just illustrates the point that writing styles and times are human constructs, not divine. Without directly supporting or refuting whether the Bible contains God's will, it still proves that the literal word of the Bible is human.


The Bible is the Word of God written by men that were filled with the Holy Spirit. And while in a writing sense it is the way it was written back in the day, that was their language it does not dismiss the influence of God's Holy Spirit on the writer.

revefsreleets
12-15-2009, 11:57 AM
The long and short of this is simple.

I'm at odds (and not just because I don't like it, because I've expanded my horizons beyond it) with Christianity, therefore, I am wrong, and the Christians are right, and they win and go to heaven and I lose and go to Hell.

Even though I have read 10's of thousands of pages about this stuff and have had hundreds of conversations with people from all over the World of different religious backgrounds, all my arguments have been shot down. They are unsound. Everything I've said has been marginalized or picked apart. My beliefs are simply flat out WRONG.

Intolerance is one of the things I MOST take umbrage with about Christianity. It's intolerant and exclusionary...and when I point that out, I'm met with even more intolerance.

Really, what IS the point of these exercises, anyway?

SteelCityMom
12-15-2009, 12:26 PM
The long and short of this is simple.

I'm at odds (and not just because I don't like it, because I've expanded my horizons beyond it) with Christianity, therefore, I am wrong, and the Christians are right, and they win and go to heaven and I lose and go to Hell.

Even though I have read 10's of thousands of pages about this stuff and have had hundreds of conversations with people from all over the World of different religious backgrounds, all my arguments have been shot down. They are unsound. Everything I've said has been marginalized or picked apart. My beliefs are simply flat out WRONG.

Really, what IS the point of these exercises, anyway?

Honestly, I'm not sure...other than being able to have open conversations about the subject. There was a time in history where people would fear for their lives for having such conversations. So I am thankful that we can all share our opinions on the matter without having to be secret about it.

Also, I think it's a little short-sighted to think that ALL Christians think that just because you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior that gives you an automatic pass into Hell. I've met a lot of different religious folks in my life, and more often than not, they've held the opinion that as long as you lead a good life and are true to yourself, that God will forgive and save a place for you in Heaven. I have not come across nearly as many "hellfire" Christians in my time (outside of some from my chuch when I was young, and my daughters Orthodox Catholic Grandmothers belief that if I don't get her baptised she will rot in hell). I'm sorry I know I'm rambling, but I had to take a vicoden after I fell on my ass on the ice and cracked my tailbone. I'm trying to make sense, I promise lol.

Anyway, In my life now, I was welcomed with open arms by different Chritians from different sect (Jehovah's, Presbyterians, Lutheran, Mormans...) and they all accepted me for who I was, an agnostic sometimes boardering on atheism. I just always felt that if I lived a decent life and atoned for my indiscretions by going to the people I wronged and trying to make it right, that this is the way I was supposed to be doing it. I never felt comfortable with the idea that you can just go into a priests box and say 5 hail marys and pray to rid yourself of your sins. I believe it takes a lot more footwork than that.

Anyway, sorry if that didn't make sense...I tried lol, my brains all over the place right now.

stlrtruck
12-15-2009, 12:28 PM
The long and short of this is simple.

I'm at odds (and not just because I don't like it, because I've expanded my horizons beyond it) with Christianity, therefore, I am wrong, and the Christians are right, and they win and go to heaven and I lose and go to Hell.

Even though I have read 10's of thousands of pages about this stuff and have had hundreds of conversations with people from all over the World of different religious backgrounds, all my arguments have been shot down. They are unsound. Everything I've said has been marginalized or picked apart. My beliefs are simply flat out WRONG.

Intolerance is one of the things I MOST take umbrage with about Christianity. It's intolerant and exclusionary...and when I point that out, I'm met with even more intolerance.

Really, what IS the point of these exercises, anyway?

Yes it is wrong to meet such thoughts with intolerance. Jesus tells us to love everyone. As a Christian, my job is tell others of the love of Christ, the hope in Christ, etc, etc, etc. It is not my job to judge who gets in to heaven or who goes to hell. That is for the final judgment and I won't be sitting on the throne when that takes place.

The point of these exercises is to exchange ideas and provoke thoughts on ideas that may not have yet been thought about. And who knows for someone out there either just lurking and reading or even someone who posts, they may actually find themselves at a crossroads and through this forum, they may determine that Christ is who He said He is, and find redemption, salvation, love, and eternal rest in the Heavenly Kingdom.

stlrtruck
12-15-2009, 12:30 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure...other than being able to have open conversations about the subject. There was a time in history where people would fear for their lives for having such conversations. So I am thankful that we can all share our opinions on the matter without having to be secret about it.


As great as that sounds, there are still countries today that do not allow Christians to practice their faith nor discuss it in any form or fashion.

BlastFurnace
12-15-2009, 01:46 PM
The long and short of this is simple.

I'm at odds (and not just because I don't like it, because I've expanded my horizons beyond it) with Christianity, therefore, I am wrong, and the Christians are right, and they win and go to heaven and I lose and go to Hell.

Even though I have read 10's of thousands of pages about this stuff and have had hundreds of conversations with people from all over the World of different religious backgrounds, all my arguments have been shot down. They are unsound. Everything I've said has been marginalized or picked apart. My beliefs are simply flat out WRONG.

Intolerance is one of the things I MOST take umbrage with about Christianity. It's intolerant and exclusionary...and when I point that out, I'm met with even more intolerance.

Really, what IS the point of these exercises, anyway?

Revs..to be fair...you are the one who started this thread by questioning why we believed in Noah's ark and then you asked other questions throughout the thread. All we did was answer them because you asked. I don't see how that is intollerant at all. People disagreed with me, but I don't look at them as intollerant towards Christianity. With all the experience you say that you have talking to people, you should have known that we would tell you why we believe what we believe. Honestly, whenever I study the Bible with anyone, I expect them to pick apart what I am telling them. In turn, they should expect for me to show them why I believe what I do. It's all part of dialogue and it should be done in a civilized manner. If people don't agree, you part as friends and perhaps discuss it at a later time.

No one said that you or anyone else is going to Hell. That is for God to judge and no-one else. If you are thinking that people on the board are condemning you to Hell, that is on you. We haven't said that.

As Christians, we do believe that Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven...but you already knew that before asking. If you don't agree with that, then you need to do what you believe is right in your own life. It's that simple. But to start a thread asking people why they believe something and then complain when someone "picks apart" your arguments to defend that belief is an unreasonable expectation.

revefsreleets
12-15-2009, 01:59 PM
Revs..to be fair...you are the one who started this thread by questioning why we believed in Noah's ark and then you asked other questions throughout the thread. All we did was answer them because you asked. I don't see how that is intollerant at all. People disagreed with me, but I don't look at them as intollerant towards Christianity. With all the experience you say that you have talking to people, you should have known that we would tell you why we believe what we believe. Honestly, whenever I study the Bible with anyone, I expect them to pick apart what I am telling them. In turn, they should expect for me to show them why I believe what I do. It's all part of dialogue and it should be done in a civilized manner. If people don't agree, you part as friends and perhaps discuss it at a later time.

No one said that you or anyone else is going to Hell. That is for God to judge and no-one else. If you are thinking that people on the board are condemning you to Hell, that is on you. We haven't said that.

As Christians, we do believe that Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven...but you already knew that before asking. If you don't agree with that, then you need to do what you believe is right in your own life. It's that simple. But to start a thread asking people why they believe something and then complain when someone "picks apart" your arguments to defend that belief is an unreasonable expectation.

There were lots of answers to my questions about Noah's Ark, yes...I was dissatisfied with almost all of them.

I was attempting to do something a little different than that with this thread...I think I accomplished what I set out to do...

BlastFurnace
12-15-2009, 02:11 PM
There were lots of answers to my questions about Noah's Ark, yes...I was dissatisfied with almost all of them.

I was attempting to do something a little different than that with this thread...I think I accomplished what I set out to do...

If you accomplished what you set out to do, then what was the point of your post where you complained about:

- Thinking that people were condemning you to Hell, when we weren't
- Complaining that people view your views as Wrong...when you had a pretty good idea that Christians would defend what they believe
- That you believe you were met with Intollerance, when in truth, questions about both belief systems were open for discussion.

I thought this thread had a lot of very good points on both sides of the issue.

xfl2001fan
12-15-2009, 03:19 PM
Yes it is wrong to meet such thoughts with intolerance. Jesus tells us to love everyone. As a Christian, my job is tell others of the love of Christ, the hope in Christ, etc, etc, etc. It is not my job to judge who gets in to heaven or who goes to hell. That is for the final judgment and I won't be sitting on the throne when that takes place.

The point of these exercises is to exchange ideas and provoke thoughts on ideas that may not have yet been thought about. And who knows for someone out there either just lurking and reading or even someone who posts, they may actually find themselves at a crossroads and through this forum, they may determine that Christ is who He said He is, and find redemption, salvation, love, and eternal rest in the Heavenly Kingdom.

Or they may find themselves turned off even more by Christianity. There was a lot of back and forth...and Revs does bring some excellent questions to the table. Almost all major religions give you an "all-inclusive" feel...within Christianity, you have several different "version" (known as denominations) that certainly have their own interesting spin on what the Bible does and doesn't say. With that kind of "infighting", is it any wonder that there are so many people appalled by all major religions? According to Catholics, Sunday's are very ritualistic. You stand at certain times, you intone specific lines at certain times...you break bread and eat the cracker at a specific time with specific verbage associated with it. Some people have found God that way...and all the more power to them for it. Others...are appalled by it (like most in my family).

Ask any Christian what their religion is...and you'll get any number of answer...with most referring to a specific denomination. Well I'm Southern Baptist and my wife is a Methodist...but you know...nobody's perfect. (It's a joke I've heard before). It's a huge turn off. If every major religion has a flood story...and every major religion has some sort of "rules" to live by (typically along the lines of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule)...what makes the difference?

Someone proclaimed themselves the Son of God, performed miracles (magicians/illusionists perform miracles all the time...as do witch doctors and such...depends on how you define miracle) and that essentially re-wrote the Jewish faith. When it happens now, we call them nuts and throw them into a padded cell. A lot of miracles have been "scienced" away...and when stuff get's passed down for hundreds of years (as some say the stories were before they were written)...a lot can change. Giving someone a tea that makes a bad cold go away...or a tuncture that heals nasty scars suddenly becomes a "miracle" a hundred years later. The nasty cuts and scrapes that made someone look like they had leprosy becomes healing a leper. Minor changes when telling a story...but major implications.

I understand where Revs is coming with this.

If you follow the 10 commandments and the golden rule...but choose not to Worship Jesus...and call God "Allah" and his prophet "Mohammed" are you still destined for hell? I'm not talking about the Islamic nuts...but the real honest to goodness good Muslims.

What about the people born in some South African Jungle that has never been visited by Christians to have learned about his message. Are they really all born and destined for Hell just because YOU or Preacher haven't made your mission trip to see them? Seems a bit unfair and short-sighted on God's part that all of His people that He created can't get on the same page...and He's apparently not willing to interfere enough to save the ones that we are either unwilling or too inept to help saving ourselves.

Maybe a rose by any other name still smells just as sweet.

Preacher
12-15-2009, 04:29 PM
The long and short of this is simple.

I'm at odds (and not just because I don't like it, because I've expanded my horizons beyond it) with Christianity, therefore, I am wrong, and the Christians are right, and they win and go to heaven and I lose and go to Hell.

Even though I have read 10's of thousands of pages about this stuff and have had hundreds of conversations with people from all over the World of different religious backgrounds, all my arguments have been shot down. They are unsound. Everything I've said has been marginalized or picked apart. My beliefs are simply flat out WRONG.

Intolerance is one of the things I MOST take umbrage with about Christianity. It's intolerant and exclusionary...and when I point that out, I'm met with even more intolerance.

Really, what IS the point of these exercises, anyway?

Revs. Seriously, you have been one of the most religiously intolerant people on this board.

You trash my belief, disregard what I have to say because I have "been indoctrinated by the church" as if I have no brain of my own, then get mad when I don't agree with you about evolution. Yet, I AM the one that is intolerant--and other Christians here?

Tolerance is not agreement. I tolerate any and everyone who is fair and open minded. In the past, you and I have had great conversations because you have been tolerant, and so have I. For some reason, that has changed for you. SteelCityMon and GoSlash have been very tolerant as well, and I tolerate them too. In the end, we will probably disagree. That is fine. Open-minded and fair doesn't mean that you agree or change your position... it means that you learn more from where the other person is coming from and how their beliefs make up their narrative.

Thus, I do believe that there is eternal damnation for those who do not believe in Jesus. The question is, will you be as tolerant about my belief as you expect me to be about yours that Christianity is a farce?

BTW, it seems, from what you have argued here, that most of what you have read concerning Christianity is popular tripe. If you are truly interested in what Christians who have researched and studied and put their faith to the test believe, let me know.

Once again, I am willing to provide a bibliography for you to understand Christianity, since you seem to enjoy reading so much. Because to be honest, what you say here, shows that you really don't understand the foundations of Christianity at all. That isn't surprising. Too many preachers in pulpits preach religion, instead of Christian faith.

GoSlash27
12-15-2009, 05:51 PM
Okay, everybody... let's all sing kumbaya and get happy. :hug:

Steelertruck,
The Bible is the Word of God written by men that were filled with the Holy Spirit. And while in a writing sense it is the way it was written back in the day, that was their language it does not dismiss the influence of God's Holy Spirit on the writer.
Yeah, that's the idea, but at best that means that the word of God must be viewed through the filter of human frailty. At worst, it means that the human element has garbled and perhaps overridden the Divine completely.
Looking at some of the passages in the OT, are they really examples of the Will of God as we understand Him according to the NT? In Genesis, when God commanded Abraham to sacrafice his son, then said (basically) "nah... I'm just messin' with ya, but kill that goat for me"... was that really illustrative of the true nature of God? or was it in error?
Or all of the outlandish stuff in Leviticus (you can pretty much pick your own passage). God, or Memorex? Does Leviticus in it's entirety truly portray God's intent for humanity? *All* of it? Or Exodus? Did a "Just and Loving" God *really* command His followers to murder anyone caught working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2)??

Are you *really* sure they cut out the right parts at the Council of Trent and left in the right stuff? Or did the Divine influence fail them as well?

Preacher
12-15-2009, 06:01 PM
Okay, everybody... let's all sing kumbaya and get happy. :hug:

Steelertruck,

Yeah, that's the idea, but at best that means that the word of God must be viewed through the filter of human frailty. At worst, it means that the human element has garbled and perhaps overridden the Divine completely.
Looking at some of the passages in the OT, are they really examples of the Will of God as we understand Him according to the NT? In Genesis, when God commanded Abraham to sacrafice his son, then said (basically) "nah... I'm just messin' with ya, but kill that goat for me"... was that really illustrative of the true nature of God? or was it in error?
Or all of the outlandish stuff in Leviticus (you can pretty much pick your own passage). God, or Memorex? Does Leviticus in it's entirety truly portray God's intent for humanity? *All* of it? Or Exodus? Did a "Just and Loving" God *really* command His followers to murder anyone caught working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2)??

Are you *really* sure they cut out the right parts at the Council of Trent and left in the right stuff? Or did the Divine influence fail them as well?

Well, to take the last first, the Council of Trent didn't cut anything out. It was the Catholic council and added the apocrypha as canonical. A status that was never given it before, primarily as a reaction to Luther. The canonical process was closed so long before that, that I don't accept the council of Trent's decision. Before that, it was the testimony of many individual churches' use of the individual books or groups of books which made the collective whole accept or reject the canonical status of a writing.

What you are asking about in the Law comes from extracting a particular out of the context of the whole. That, however, is a VER long discussion. So I will hold off for now. If you want to have it, may I suggest we do it at least in another thread... if not in PM or someplace else.

As I have said to many others... I love and enjoy these discussions, will have them with anyone, as long as respect is shown to both sides (My typical comment when offering a discussion like this, nothing intended directly at you, GoSlash I said the same to Patsfan the other month).

GoSlash27
12-15-2009, 06:46 PM
Preacher,
As I have said to many others... I love and enjoy these discussions, will have them with anyone, as long as respect is shown to both sides (My typical comment when offering a discussion like this, nothing intended directly at you, GoSlash I said the same to Patsfan the other month).
Thank you. I have also thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Still working through your writing at the moment
-Slashy

Preacher
12-15-2009, 06:49 PM
Preacher,

Thank you. I have also thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Still working through your writing at the moment
-Slashy

LOL I apologize for inflicting it upon you! Talk about dry and boring eh?

BlastFurnace
12-15-2009, 09:59 PM
LOL I apologize for inflicting it upon you! Talk about dry and boring eh?

I don't find it boring at all. I'm finding it very interesting.

Thanks for sending it my way.

urgle burgle
12-16-2009, 04:09 AM
are you conceding that is the premise under which this thread was started? it is an interesting conversation, especially being that i have such an unconventional take.

man was created in the image of God and then took a bite from the tree of knowledge.

right there from page one in the bible, we are separated from "creationist" to "evolutionists".

science and religion go hand in hand in my mind. they are married like the yin to the yang.

written language, domestication of animals, and civilization as we know it originated in the euphrates valley. the bible is about the 1st source to corroborate this.

this is when mankind reached its evolutionary highpoint (in His image).

excellent post. i too think that both science and God can both work together. why must one exist without the other? if God created all things, would He then not have created the concept and use of science. the more we go through life (as humanity as a whole) the more that science has been used to prove theories of the Bible. the history channel, a few years back, had an excellent episdoe that showed how scientific theory could be used to prove the exodus of Moses and the plagues of the Bible. very interesting.

urgle burgle
12-16-2009, 06:59 AM
I would ask that a couple of you please refrain from the snarky little comments and flame-baiting in this thread. There is a good discussion going here - please keep it going without cyber-ripping each other's hair out by the roots.

Our mantra around here for those who haven't heard this broken record before . . . .

Attack the post, NOT THE POSTER.

Amen.

what if you are looking at a poster of the jonas brothers?:tt02:

revefsreleets
12-16-2009, 08:40 AM
Revs. Seriously, you have been one of the most religiously intolerant people on this board.

You trash my belief, disregard what I have to say because I have "been indoctrinated by the church" as if I have no brain of my own, then get mad when I don't agree with you about evolution. Yet, I AM the one that is intolerant--and other Christians here?

Tolerance is not agreement. I tolerate any and everyone who is fair and open minded. In the past, you and I have had great conversations because you have been tolerant, and so have I. For some reason, that has changed for you. SteelCityMon and GoSlash have been very tolerant as well, and I tolerate them too. In the end, we will probably disagree. That is fine. Open-minded and fair doesn't mean that you agree or change your position... it means that you learn more from where the other person is coming from and how their beliefs make up their narrative.

Thus, I do believe that there is eternal damnation for those who do not believe in Jesus. The question is, will you be as tolerant about my belief as you expect me to be about yours that Christianity is a farce?

BTW, it seems, from what you have argued here, that most of what you have read concerning Christianity is popular tripe. If you are truly interested in what Christians who have researched and studied and put their faith to the test believe, let me know.

Once again, I am willing to provide a bibliography for you to understand Christianity, since you seem to enjoy reading so much. Because to be honest, what you say here, shows that you really don't understand the foundations of Christianity at all. That isn't surprising. Too many preachers in pulpits preach religion, instead of Christian faith.

I've trashed nothing. I've questioned, and pointed out things that don't make sense to me, but that's hardly "trashing". However, I've come close to being trashed. My arguments are tripe. I'm ignorant. I don't know what I'm talking about, etc, etc...the thread is filled with language like this...

How am I intolerant? I'm the one who is actually stating that every religion has valid points, and that it's myopic at best, plain closed-minded at worst to simply dismiss them out of hand because they are "other".


My point in this thread was simple. No matter WHAT I (and others) assert, if it questions Christianity in any way, even fantastical contradictions that would seem to any logical person to be impossible to reconcile, there is always a neat, pat, boilerplate ready-made answer from the Christians. In attempt to be consistent, and being crippled by the fact that I can't fill gaps with things like miracles, and fluid interpretations, it makes it incredibly difficult to argue with a bloc of people who have an answer for EVERYTHING, even if they are clearly vacillating and changing positions (from necessity) from topic-to-topic.

Take creation. Seven days is what the bible says. The literalists have to stick to that timetable...they HAVE to because the bible tells them so. But it makes no sense, soooooooooooo, well, how about each days lasting longer than 24 hours? Sure, that'll work!

Huh?

Noah's Ark is the perfect foil for this. To believe this fable in the most literal sense is absurd. Almost every aspect of this myth is impossible. But I'm hearing that it either IS completely true just the way the bible said, OR it's open to some selective interpretation. In other words, trying to have it both ways.

Science does not have that luxury. There are rules that must be followed. When their is uncertainty, it simply must remain unsolved for now. Scientists can't just fill in the gaps of their knowledge and say "Well, that's just God filling in the gap" or whatever.

When we discuss Creationism vs. Evolution, almost EVERY counter argument to Evolution starts and ends with "Yes, Creationism cannot be proved, BUT NEITHER CAN EVOLUTION. This is comparable to the whole "Bu-bu-Bush" counter-argument.

I was doomed from the start because it's not a level playing field. I'm a layman arguing with people trained to defend their beliefs at any cost. I have strict rules I have to follow, and the opposition is not hamstrung by the same restrictions. THAT is what my overriding point is. Even if I go off and do a bunch of research (which I have done before), and present solid, factual, logical, cited arguments, they are quickly shot down because religious apologists can bend the rules as they see fit. THAT is where faith comes into debate.

stlrtruck
12-16-2009, 09:36 AM
Or they may find themselves turned off even more by Christianity. There was a lot of back and forth...and Revs does bring some excellent questions to the table. Almost all major religions give you an "all-inclusive" feel...within Christianity, you have several different "version" (known as denominations) that certainly have their own interesting spin on what the Bible does and doesn't say. With that kind of "infighting", is it any wonder that there are so many people appalled by all major religions? According to Catholics, Sunday's are very ritualistic. You stand at certain times, you intone specific lines at certain times...you break bread and eat the cracker at a specific time with specific verbage associated with it. Some people have found God that way...and all the more power to them for it. Others...are appalled by it (like most in my family).

Ask any Christian what their religion is...and you'll get any number of answer...with most referring to a specific denomination. Well I'm Southern Baptist and my wife is a Methodist...but you know...nobody's perfect. (It's a joke I've heard before). It's a huge turn off. If every major religion has a flood story...and every major religion has some sort of "rules" to live by (typically along the lines of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule)...what makes the difference?

Someone proclaimed themselves the Son of God, performed miracles (magicians/illusionists perform miracles all the time...as do witch doctors and such...depends on how you define miracle) and that essentially re-wrote the Jewish faith. When it happens now, we call them nuts and throw them into a padded cell. A lot of miracles have been "scienced" away...and when stuff get's passed down for hundreds of years (as some say the stories were before they were written)...a lot can change. Giving someone a tea that makes a bad cold go away...or a tuncture that heals nasty scars suddenly becomes a "miracle" a hundred years later. The nasty cuts and scrapes that made someone look like they had leprosy becomes healing a leper. Minor changes when telling a story...but major implications.

I understand where Revs is coming with this.

If you follow the 10 commandments and the golden rule...but choose not to Worship Jesus...and call God "Allah" and his prophet "Mohammed" are you still destined for hell? I'm not talking about the Islamic nuts...but the real honest to goodness good Muslims.

What about the people born in some South African Jungle that has never been visited by Christians to have learned about his message. Are they really all born and destined for Hell just because YOU or Preacher haven't made your mission trip to see them? Seems a bit unfair and short-sighted on God's part that all of His people that He created can't get on the same page...and He's apparently not willing to interfere enough to save the ones that we are either unwilling or too inept to help saving ourselves.

Maybe a rose by any other name still smells just as sweet.

You're right, it can very well turn people off to Christ (or Christianity for that point). I know my oldest brother was turned off from it because people in church told him he was sick and had problems because of the sins in his life. Yeah, that's Christ like!

Right again, the various denominations and in-fighting can definitely make it difficult for a non-Christian to grasp hold of Jesus' true teachings.

The thing about Jesus' life is that it was prophesied hundreds of years before his arrival. If the Jewish leaders were more focused on what was going on around them rather than the traditions they had instituted, made fleshly, and basically destroyed, they would have seen that the Messiah was with them. Matter of fact, many individuals were there for his 3 years of ministry. People were set free from afflictions, sickness, and disease.

It's not just about the 10 commandments or even following Jesus' Golden Rule. It is about the relationship one has with Jesus. I believe that is where a lot of Christians go wrong in trying to reach non-believers. They never explain the relationship, instead they tend to make it sound more like rules and regulations on their life, when in reality in a real relationship with Christ people can experience freedoms. In my believe, yes if someone has not accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour, then regardless of them living a good life they will end up in hell. But again, as I mentioned earlier, I will not be on the throne when Judgment Day is here. Therefore, what God decides to do on that day is not in my realm of understanding.

God's word proclaims the entire world will hear His word. So just because I haven't been there (or Preacher for that matter), doesn't mean that God doesn't have it in the works.

stlrtruck
12-16-2009, 09:36 AM
Okay, everybody... let's all sing kumbaya and get happy. :hug:

Steelertruck,

Yeah, that's the idea, but at best that means that the word of God must be viewed through the filter of human frailty. At worst, it means that the human element has garbled and perhaps overridden the Divine completely.
Looking at some of the passages in the OT, are they really examples of the Will of God as we understand Him according to the NT? In Genesis, when God commanded Abraham to sacrafice his son, then said (basically) "nah... I'm just messin' with ya, but kill that goat for me"... was that really illustrative of the true nature of God? or was it in error?
Or all of the outlandish stuff in Leviticus (you can pretty much pick your own passage). God, or Memorex? Does Leviticus in it's entirety truly portray God's intent for humanity? *All* of it? Or Exodus? Did a "Just and Loving" God *really* command His followers to murder anyone caught working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2)??

Are you *really* sure they cut out the right parts at the Council of Trent and left in the right stuff? Or did the Divine influence fail them as well?

I believe the OT delivers God's Will for His people (the Israelites) during that time. I would agree that it doesn't seem like the same God but truly, imo, God is both a loving God as well as a God that is illustrated in the OT. As with Abraham, I believe He was testing his heart and his faith, and He saw it was good with Abraham.

As for Leviticus, I'll have to get back to you. It's been awhile since I've read that book.

And yes I believe that God instructed His people to follow the guidelines he established. In some cases, that involved stoning to death. Even in the OT when the levites would come in to the temple. If they were not in the right mind, they would die. Why? Because they were in the midst of God and God can not be in the presence of sin. Even today, when I sin, God can not be in my presence - thusly I must repent and ask God's forgiveness.

And yes I believe that God's word is God's word and it is through His Holy Spirit that we have received His word as it is.

Take creation. Seven days is what the bible says. The literalists have to stick to that timetable...they HAVE to because the bible tells them so. But it makes no sense, soooooooooooo, well, how about each days lasting longer than 24 hours? Sure, that'll work!

Huh?

Noah's Ark is the perfect foil for this. To believe this fable in the most literal sense is absurd. Almost every aspect of this myth is impossible. But I'm hearing that it either IS completely true just the way the bible said, OR it's open to some selective interpretation. In other words, trying to have it both ways.

Science does not have that luxury. There are rules that must be followed. When their is uncertainty, it simply must remain unsolved for now. Scientists can't just fill in the gaps of their knowledge and say "Well, that's just God filling in the gap" or whatever.

When we discuss Creationism vs. Evolution, almost EVERY counter argument to Evolution starts and ends with "Yes, Creationism cannot be proved, BUT NEITHER CAN EVOLUTION. This is comparable to the whole "Bu-bu-Bush" counter-argument.

I was doomed from the start because it's not a level playing field. I'm a layman arguing with people trained to defend their beliefs at any cost. I have strict rules I have to follow, and the opposition is not hamstrung by the same restrictions. THAT is what my overriding point is. Even if I go off and do a bunch of research (which I have done before), and present solid, factual, logical, cited arguments, they are quickly shot down because religious apologists can bend the rules as they see fit. THAT is where faith comes into debate.

You're last sentence sums it up well. Faith to believe God's word for what it is.
Science could never prove (or disprove) that the flood happened. It can not prove that God created the Earth and everything else mentioned in Genesis in 7 days. It is logically, rationally, and reasonably unacceptable that these things could have occurred.

BUT, faithfully I believe they did occur, just as God's word depicts it. I don't need science to either prove it disprove it and I don't need every inch of detail to believe it. I believe God. And for that, you have ridiculed people who believe that. Why? Because in your mind it is not fathomable? If man can't recreate it, it couldn't be? If science can not prove it happened then it didn't?

And I'm think that scientists do try to fill in the gaps. They're just not that good at it because they do have the physical limitations of the world in which they live. There is no room for miracles, but they hypothesis and draw conclusions based on data that isn't complete. Case in point - Global Warming.

It reminds me of the joke:
A scientist goes to God and says we don't need you, we've found a way to create man from dirt. God says, "Ok, let me see it!" The scientist bends down and starts to get some dirt and God stops him saying, "Wait, get your own dirt!"

Revs, I appreciate your thoughts and views. For the most part you have been respectful in your dialogue. You've given me food for thought. But at the same time, you've come back trying to play the victim and I don't believe that what this thread has been about. You don't believe the way that others here do, that's ok, but it doesn't make you a victim. I truly think that what you've run in to here is that some people on this board have a faith and belief that surpasses any logical understanding - like a child who believes without knowledge (it is exactly how Jesus instructed us to come to Him).

GoSlash27
12-16-2009, 05:35 PM
LOL I apologize for inflicting it upon you! Talk about dry and boring eh?
Nah. Not at all.

Preacher
12-16-2009, 06:03 PM
[QUOTE=revefsreleets;731871]

My point in this thread was simple. No matter WHAT I (and others) assert, if it questions Christianity in any way, even fantastical contradictions that would seem to any logical person to be impossible to reconcile, there is always a neat, pat, boilerplate ready-made answer from the Christians. In attempt to be consistent, and being crippled by the fact that I can't fill gaps with things like miracles, and fluid interpretations, it makes it incredibly difficult to argue with a bloc of people who have an answer for EVERYTHING, even if they are clearly vacillating and changing positions (from necessity) from topic-to-topic. [\quote]

To put it simply....

If we don't agree with you, we are illogical. if we believe in Christianity, we are wrong. And we can't think for ourselves, but have to have the church give us boilerplate answers.

Is that about it?

Do i need to point out my post concerning the secular education again?

And just why is it, that if a person doesn't accept evolution, they are automatically wrong?

Preacher
12-16-2009, 06:04 PM
excellent post. i too think that both science and God can both work together. why must one exist without the other? if God created all things, would He then not have created the concept and use of science. the more we go through life (as humanity as a whole) the more that science has been used to prove theories of the Bible. the history channel, a few years back, had an excellent episdoe that showed how scientific theory could be used to prove the exodus of Moses and the plagues of the Bible. very interesting.

Hey, I haven't seen you around here much. Nice to see you again.

xfl2001fan
12-16-2009, 06:38 PM
You're right, it can very well turn people off to Christ (or Christianity for that point). I know my oldest brother was turned off from it because people in church told him he was sick and had problems because of the sins in his life. Yeah, that's Christ like!

Right again, the various denominations and in-fighting can definitely make it difficult for a non-Christian to grasp hold of Jesus' true teachings.

The thing about Jesus' life is that it was prophesied hundreds of years before his arrival. If the Jewish leaders were more focused on what was going on around them rather than the traditions they had instituted, made fleshly, and basically destroyed, they would have seen that the Messiah was with them. Matter of fact, many individuals were there for his 3 years of ministry. People were set free from afflictions, sickness, and disease.

It's not just about the 10 commandments or even following Jesus' Golden Rule. It is about the relationship one has with Jesus. I believe that is where a lot of Christians go wrong in trying to reach non-believers. They never explain the relationship, instead they tend to make it sound more like rules and regulations on their life, when in reality in a real relationship with Christ people can experience freedoms. In my believe, yes if someone has not accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour, then regardless of them living a good life they will end up in hell. But again, as I mentioned earlier, I will not be on the throne when Judgment Day is here. Therefore, what God decides to do on that day is not in my realm of understanding.

God's word proclaims the entire world will hear His word. So just because I haven't been there (or Preacher for that matter), doesn't mean that God doesn't have it in the works.

Let's take a page out of the Bible to counter...the Bible. In Revelations (a prophecy) it mentions that the Anti-Christ would come and have the power to heal, etc... etc...

Jesus was prophecied as well. What if these two prophecies are one and the same? What if Jesus was the Anti-Christ with the power to heal and all that. Who's to say that the prophecy of Jesus was incomplete and lost in time (since Old Testament wasn't actually written...was it?) and didn't actually say that the Devil (Anti-Christ is a name we give the guy) wasn't actually Jesus?

What if God told Paul to beware of that type of following? Paul wouldn't have prayed to Jesus (even after the death/resurrection) ...but prayed to God as Jesus instructed. What if the Muslims (not the extremists) have it right...and Jesus was the Muslim Anti-Christ used to cause strife in the lands with the wrong views.

I don't believe it...so don't take it along those lines...but when the Anti-Christ does gome, with the power to perform miracles...this entity will likely draw in a huge following. You say prophecies...when was the last true prophet born? Why haven't we heard of any since Nostradamus (who was wrong more often than right?) Did God stop caring enough to send us Prophets? Would you listen to a prophet if one was sent here? You have Faith that God would help you with the right answer to that...but if by not listening to the Prophet He sends...you are (effectively) not listening to God anyways. You are already failing God in that scenario.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-16-2009, 06:42 PM
Science does not have that luxury. There are rules that must be followed. When their is uncertainty, it simply must remain unsolved for now. Scientists can't just fill in the gaps of their knowledge and say "Well, that's just God filling in the gap" or whatever.

Even if I go off and do a bunch of research (which I have done before), and present solid, factual, logical, cited arguments, they are quickly shot down because religious apologists can bend the rules as they see fit. THAT is where faith comes into debate.

Too be fair Rev...Evolutionist "bend" the rules all the time. We are told that all matter just "poofed" out of nonexistence...and was once the size of a tiny dot. Then that matter began to swell and spin until all matter broke off into smaler clumbs of mass that made up stars...planets...moons...etc.

However...since the the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum states that all items thrown from an originating spinning object MUST spin in the same direction, the scientific community must "bend" the rules to explain why Venus spins in an opposite direction then the rest of the planets.

Since Evolution cant explain basic questions such as what is the mechanism for getting new complexity's such as new vital organs...or answer for the missing billions of transitional fossils that should be there...or even that basic question as to where matter originated...The scientific community simply refers to them as "singularities"...their version of miracles.

Preacher
12-16-2009, 06:49 PM
Too be fair Rev...Evolutionist "bend" the rules all the time. We are told that all matter just "poofed" out of nonexistence...and was once the size of a tiny dot. Then that matter began to swell and spin until all matter broke off into smaler clumbs of mass that made up stars...planets...moons...etc.

However...since the the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum states that all items thrown from an originating spinning object MUST spin in the same direction, the scientific community must "bend" the rules to explain why Venus spins in an opposite direction then the rest of the planets.

Since Evolution cant explain basic questions such as what is the mechanism for getting new complexity's such as new vital organs...or answer for the missing billions of transitional fossils that should be there...or even that basic question as to where matter originated...The scientific community simply refers to them as "singularities"...their version of miracles.

yep.. actually, what science is finding out, is that there aren't as many "rules" as they thought. Things they thought were absolutes are turning out not to be. As I have posted many times, speed of light, light waves of both energy and particles, existence depending on cognitive thought/relationship (quantum mechanics) etc.

things do not fit nice and neat into little categories. No, matter the faith... be it christian, islam, taoism, or evolution.

GoSlash27
12-16-2009, 06:53 PM
To put it simply....

If we don't agree with you, we are illogical. if we believe in Christianity, we are wrong. And we can't think for ourselves, but have to have the church give us boilerplate answers.

Is that about it?

Do i need to point out my post concerning the secular education again?

And just why is it, that if a person doesn't accept evolution, they are automatically wrong?
All due respect, Preacher, but I think the point is that if you're illogical you're illogical and if you're inconsistent you're inconsistent.
It comes back to the theme I've reiterated upstream; Reason demands proof and proof denies faith.

Now... this is not an attempt to introduce a strawman argument into the discussion, but this post from a dear friend of mine repeats a concept that I see frequently from the faithful side of this argument, and illustrates the *exact same concept*, but with a more flattering spin.
And it goes...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary... to one without faith, no explanation is possible."

This is a sentiment I agree with 100%, but (for all the obvious reasons) don't look upon favorably.

You see... for any *rational* person (or even just an impartial observer), the explanation is important. It is crucial to our deeming a statement of fact as true, or at least plausible. Anything that fails that basic test is bound to get rejected.
Now, the field of science tends to draw people to it who are fundamentally rational, inquisitive beings. Ex; Renee Descartes.

Little wonder, then that religion feels threatened by these folks. But you see, they didn't set out since childhood looking to undermine the *Church*, they set out looking for answers. Explanations. Proof, if you like.

Preacher
12-16-2009, 07:19 PM
All due respect, Preacher, but I think the point is that if you're illogical you're illogical and if you're inconsistent you're inconsistent.
It comes back to the theme I've reiterated upstream; Reason demands proof and proof denies faith.

Now... this is not an attempt to introduce a strawman argument into the discussion, but this post from a dear friend of mine repeats a concept that I see frequently from the faithful side of this argument, and illustrates the *exact same concept*, but with a more flattering spin.
And it goes...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary... to one without faith, no explanation is possible."

This is a sentiment I agree with 100%, but (for all the obvious reasons) don't look upon favorably.

You see... for any *rational* person (or even just an impartial observer), the explanation is important. It is crucial to our deeming a statement of fact as true, or at least plausible. Anything that fails that basic test is bound to get rejected.
Now, the field of science tends to draw people to it who are fundamentally rational, inquisitive beings. Ex; Renee Descartes.

Little wonder, then that religion feels threatened by these folks. But you see, they didn't set out since childhood looking to undermine the *Church*, they set out looking for answers. Explanations. Proof, if you like.

There is a distinct difference between logical, and observable data, or as you say it, reason, and proof (physical). Proof, simply means it can be proven logically. Physical proof is a different ballgame... but is based on a faith that the only thing that exists is what can be known by the human.

In truth, Christianity is very logical it starts with a foundation and from that foundation, has very logical arguments to its conclusion.

Science does the same. it has a foundation, and then has very logical arguments to its conclusion.

And the thing is, the field of biblical studies and theology draws the same rational, logical people into it. I do not feel threatened by "scientists". I do however, question what I see as an absolute adherence to a foundation which I have come to question across multiple disciplines in both soft and hard sciences. The answers which have been postulated, are based on that foundation which to me, is beginning to look more and more shaky as I become more aware of its philosophical underpinnings.

In the end, what we are left with is, (and thank goodness you started reading my paper so you will understand this), multiple competing metanarratives. The choice then, is which metanarrative you choose to begin your journey in. Where you end up is 99 percent of the time pre-determined by where you begin the journey.

The problem I have with Rev here, is that he negates the explanations not because they are illogical (I have yet to see him actually argue through the logic), but because they have simply come from a Christian.

The conversation you and I are having is different. You are asking questions concerning internal consistency within my metanarrative. That is, you have allowed me to negate foundationalism and given me the foundations of my metanarrative, and then questioned the results from the foundation with in the story. That is a MUCH fairer and honest question. That is why I had no problem sending you my paper, and look forward to discussing it with you when we are done, knowing that you probably won't agree with me.

The problem I have with Rev's position in general, is that he is arguing foundationism . that there is only one solid foundational truth upon which everything else must rest, but doesn't see or understand that he has accepted that foundation by faith, because it is ONLY faith which can state, "this is the foundation."

stlrtruck
12-16-2009, 07:19 PM
Let's take a page out of the Bible to counter...the Bible. In Revelations (a prophecy) it mentions that the Anti-Christ would come and have the power to heal, etc... etc...

Jesus was prophecied as well. What if these two prophecies are one and the same? What if Jesus was the Anti-Christ with the power to heal and all that. Who's to say that the prophecy of Jesus was incomplete and lost in time (since Old Testament wasn't actually written...was it?) and didn't actually say that the Devil (Anti-Christ is a name we give the guy) wasn't actually Jesus?

What if God told Paul to beware of that type of following? Paul wouldn't have prayed to Jesus (even after the death/resurrection) ...but prayed to God as Jesus instructed. What if the Muslims (not the extremists) have it right...and Jesus was the Muslim Anti-Christ used to cause strife in the lands with the wrong views.

I don't believe it...so don't take it along those lines...but when the Anti-Christ does gome, with the power to perform miracles...this entity will likely draw in a huge following. You say prophecies...when was the last true prophet born? Why haven't we heard of any since Nostradamus (who was wrong more often than right?) Did God stop caring enough to send us Prophets? Would you listen to a prophet if one was sent here? You have Faith that God would help you with the right answer to that...but if by not listening to the Prophet He sends...you are (effectively) not listening to God anyways. You are already failing God in that scenario.

It is impossible for Jesus to be the saviour and the anti-christ (in the terms in which you put in your first paragraph). That would be a house divided and even as Jesus mentioned a house divided can not stand.

God did warn the disciples about false prophets, and there have been a few that I've heard about in the past 20 years. Why do we not hear of prophets today? Not sure, you'll have to ask God about that one. I know people that were supposed prophets but what they talked about did not follow God's word. That's the thing about prophets, at least as I understand them, is that what they speak will be God's truth and it will be in accordance with His Will and His Word.

I don't think God stopped caring, maybe He has sent prophets and we haven't listened. Again you'd have to ask God. I know that He has delivered encouraging words to me about things and I've seen them come to fruition. What does that mean in the grand scheme of things? Not sure, I don't have a prophetic word for anyone right now, but I've learned that when the Lord speaks to me to tell someone something I need to follow through with it. So maybe there are prophets, but they haven't stepped up yet. Or maybe they've stepped up and the country has stopped listening.

If someone comes out as a prophet I would listen to what he had to say then I would compare it to the word of God and make sure it is in accordance with His word. If it does not meet the standard of God's word then I wouldn't feel compelled to follow what that "prophet" was saying. And yes, I would trust God to help me discern what is TRUE and what is false.

But you're right the anti-christ will gather many followers and he will deceive many. Even those who proclaim to be Christians will fall to the anti-christ.

GoSlash27
12-16-2009, 07:34 PM
Preacher,
The problem I have with Rev's position in general, is that he is arguing foundationism . that there is only one solid foundational truth upon which everything else must rest, but doesn't see or understand that he has accepted that foundation by faith, because it is ONLY faith which can state, "this is the foundation."
Well... I sorta agree there, but only sorta. I know (and I'll probably get flamed for it) that Rev can be abrasive at times, but I see a deeper logic in his argument.
I don't agree with the notion that the only thing that exists is that which can be understood (not by a long shot) :chuckle:, but the fact remains that the only thing we can logically call "proof" is that which has been either demonstrated or logically derived.

revefsreleets
12-16-2009, 07:47 PM
Actually, what I'm saying is that MOST of my assertions (which I've purposefully "dumbed down" this time around) have been countered with "Yes, but what about the holes in YOUR argument?", and NOT fundamentally sound supporting arguments for the very things I'm questioning.

My beginning position should carry some weight because I BEGAN believing one thing, and wound up believing almost the opposite. Unless you believe that I'm truly ignorant, or that I have some agenda (which is kind of comical, having been literally on both sides of this argument in my time), it's probably best to stop assuming what my motivations are and simply address what I'm asserting, or, in this thread, the questions I'm asking.

I have also taken plenty of shots myself, along the way, which seems particularly irrelevant to me, and I've largely ignored other than to simply point out that I've observed the behavior and question what THAT brings to the table.

stlrtruck
12-16-2009, 09:23 PM
Actually, what I'm saying is that MOST of my assertions (which I've purposefully "dumbed down" this time around) have been countered with "Yes, but what about the holes in YOUR argument?", and NOT fundamentally sound supporting arguments for the very things I'm questioning.

My beginning position should carry some weight because I BEGAN believing one thing, and wound up believing almost the opposite. Unless you believe that I'm truly ignorant, or that I have some agenda (which is kind of comical, having been literally on both sides of this argument in my time), it's probably best to stop assuming what my motivations are and simply address what I'm asserting, or, in this thread, the questions I'm asking.

I have also taken plenty of shots myself, along the way, which seems particularly irrelevant to me, and I've largely ignored other than to simply point out that I've observed the behavior and question what THAT brings to the table.

So let's see if I can answer your questions here.

By the sounds of it, you are still searching for something tangible that can be put on a table and say, "Look, there it is!"

The problem is that the source of information does not give the detailed answers you seek. And from what I've read, it seems that without it, you aren't sold on the idea that the whole concept of Noah's Ark (or any other unfathomable event in the OT or miracle in the NT) happened.

So back to your original post....

Is it true that the dimensions of the Ark were 155 meters long, 25 meters wide and 15 meters high and it was to contain three decks, a side-opening door and a one-cubit square window at the top? I haven't checked the length of a cubit, but the next time I have down time at work I'll check that out for you.

Where did Noah fit the 30 million known pairs of species? You're assuming that 30 million animals were created by God. The bible does not specify how many animals were on the Ark. To assume that the maturation of a species or the (here's the word you may be looking for to attempt to solidify your argument) evolution of animals couldn't or didn't occur post-flood is a bit premature.

How did Noah load all these animals in the 24 hours the bible said it took to load them? 460 animals and organisms entered PER SECOND?

How did the very few people on the Ark feed these millions of animals? God took care of this for them. But you're also assuming again that there were millions, or that they were adult size animals. No one alive today knows exactly what animals were on board or their size. And it takes faith to believe that God was able to provide not only for Noah and his family but also for the animals.

Where did the waste of all these animals go? I mean, there are a LOT of stalls to clean, no? Maybe God had them hold it for 40 days. And really, is this really the minute answers you're seeking? If so, then I would suggest you take a some time alone with God and see if He'll answer your questions about it. For truly God is the only one (other than Noah and his family) who knows the answers to the questions you ask.

How did community organisms like bee's survive if there was only a pair? It's a God thing. Again, imo, one has to believe that God made sure that all animals had what they needed to survive those 40 days on the Ark.

How did Noah gather animals that were undiscovered at that point (assuming that ALL animals existed, since the World is only 6,000 years old)? Like animals from Australia?

Where did the Dinosaurs go?

This is only the beginning of the questions I have...the veritable tip of the iceberg...just want to dip my toe and see what response I get...

It sounds to me like you are splitting hairs in an attempt to find some logical and intellectual to answers to events that surpass our finite human minds. And I'm sure you are smiling at that, that your intellectual side is satisfied that no one can show you proof/give you the answers you want/need to satisfy some internal desire.

The answers you seek can only be delivered to you by God. For only He (well and Noah) knows the answers to the hair splitting questions you've asked.

Is it that difficult to take it on faith that it happened?

Preacher
12-16-2009, 10:24 PM
Preacher,

Well... I sorta agree there, but only sorta. I know (and I'll probably get flamed for it) that Rev can be abrasive at times, but I see a deeper logic in his argument.
I don't agree with the notion that the only thing that exists is that which can be understood (not by a long shot) :chuckle:, but the fact remains that the only thing we can logically call "proof" is that which has been either demonstrated or logically derived.

But according to whose logic, and according to whose standard? That is the rub. It will only be proven by acceptance of pre-drawn standards, which means the metanarrative of that position has already been accepted, thus, pre-deciding the answer.

That is the issue for me. That is why, in the end, I believe it is ALL about faith. Someone takes a step in faith to decide on a metanarrative, then moves from there. that metanarrative then sets the foundations for the individual reality (Speech-act theory).

MasterOfPuppets
12-16-2009, 10:43 PM
if the highest mountains in the world were under water...where did all that water receed to? did it all just evaporate ? how long did this boat ride last ?

tony hipchest
12-16-2009, 11:57 PM
if the highest mountains in the world were under water...where did all that water receed to? did it all just evaporate ? how long did this boat ride last ?being that it was flat at the time, the water just fell off the edge of the earth.

the rain lasted 40 days. i would suspect the ride was about the same time. but it lasted until the dove brought back a branch from an olive tree to prove that land and life did still exist.

see, even the bible doesnt contend that ALL olive trees were wiped out during the flood.

:noidea:

if a dove was sent out to its death to test for life and there was no dry land it wouldve died and they would now be extinct.

which begs the question, how many birds that noah didnt gather landed on the ark during the flood, when it was the only thing to land on? :scratchchin:

until we answer these questions with a definiteive answer, people will remain skeptical.

things can only be taken literally, if you put them into the time and context of when they were initially reported/documented.

the miracle isnt that the entire globe was submersed in water, but that noah listened to and did what he was told, and his tale has survived the ages.

Preacher
12-17-2009, 12:04 AM
being that it was flat at the time, the water just fell off the edge of the earth.

the rain lasted 40 days. i would suspect the ride was about the same time. but it lasted until the dove brought back a branch from an olive tree to prove that land and life did still exist.

see, even the bible doesnt contend that ALL olive trees were wiped out during the flood.

:noidea:

if a dove was sent out to its death to test for life and there was no dry land it wouldve died and they would now be extinct.

which begs the question, how many birds that noah didnt gather landed on the ark during the flood, when it was the only thing to land on? :scratchchin:

until we answer these questions with a definiteive answer, people will remain skeptical.

things can only be taken literally, if you put them into the time and context of when they were initially reported/documented.

the miracle isnt that the entire globe was submersed in water, but that noah listened to and did what he was told, and his tale has survived the ages.

While I disagree with you in parts and pieces... you have the heart of the matter firmly in hand.

tony hipchest
12-17-2009, 12:31 AM
While I disagree with you in parts and pieces... you have the heart of the matter firmly in hand.

:laughing: my post (and answers to MOP) was mostly tongue in cheek.

the bible is a mysterious and some would say magical book. i find it to be the most intriguing piece of literature compiled in the history of mankind.

one who believes in God, knows that God knows the intentions of those who read it.

most of the answers to questions being asked on a message board can simply be found within the pages. one simply doesnt get the answers from man, but the word itself.

im thinking alot of the skeptics here have probably read the book once or twice and said "well that was kinda entertaining, but kinda dumb, and doesnt make much sense." (im sure they skimmed right through numbers and all of the "begats".)

there are those who describe it as the "cosmic comic book" and to some degree they are correct.

the words i read as a kid takes on an entirely new life and meaning when i read them as an adult. there are so many layers to the onion, so many words between the lines, so many "secrets" of faith that are only "revealed" to those who can approach it with an open mind and an open heart.

there is a reason evolution has only "evolved" one "man" (meaning human kind).

understanding the bible is kinda like anything else in life. you only get out of it, what you put into it. :noidea:

Preacher
12-17-2009, 12:48 AM
:laughing: my post (and answers to MOP) was mostly tongue in cheek.

the bible is a mysterious and some would say magical book. i find it to be the most intriguing piece of literature compiled in the history of mankind.

one who believes in God, knows that God knows the intentions of those who read it.

most of the answers to questions being asked on a message board can simply be found within the pages. one simply doesnt get the answers from man, but the word itself.

im thinking alot of the skeptics here have probably read the book once or twice and said "well that was kinda entertaining, but kinda dumb, and doesnt make much sense." (im sure they skimmed right through numbers and all of the "begats".)

there are those who describe it as the "cosmic comic book" and to some degree they are correct.

the words i read as a kid takes on an entirely new life and meaning when i read them as an adult. there are so many layers to the onion, so many words between the lines, so many "secrets" of faith that are only "revealed" to those who can approach it with an open mind and an open heart.

there is a reason evolution has only "evolved" one "man" (meaning human kind).

understanding the bible is kinda like anything else in life. you only get out of it, what you put into it. :noidea:


I wish we lived closer together... we'd have some great talks over wings.


You know Rev... Its the same with you... Though I have a feeling... I'd get in trouble at home because our talks would last to 3 or 4 in the morning.

xfl2001fan
12-17-2009, 05:01 AM
if a dove was sent out to its death to test for life and there was no dry land it wouldve died and they would now be extinct.

No...because there were two of each type of carnivore...and 7 (or 7 pairs? can't remember) of the rest.

I'm sure that this was a tongue-in cheek post...and haven't read far enough ahead to verify further.

Leftoverhard
12-17-2009, 05:37 PM
thousands of baby animals...