The New Christian Thread 2

[Harbinger]

Every scientific field in existence says it didn't happen? Really? What's the evidence contradicting it?

Nautical engineering for starters, a wooden ship the size of the ark wouldn't be able to support it's own weight.

[BuccoBruce]

Nautical engineering for starters, a wooden ship the size of the ark wouldn't be able to support it's own weight.

Link?

[TEAMWORK]

What does this mean? Does this mean that women should be covering their head? Does this mean that a woman's head covering is her hair? When I initially was reading through the chapter, I took this to mean a woman's hair.

What are you guy's take on this?

What you read is a beautiful example of the different ways that people even today will apply parts of the bible to daily life. Where different means inconsistent.

My grandma, until the day she died, wore a small cloth covering on her hair, sort of like a doily (google it), every Sunday to church. She was a missionary for decades and one of the most godly women you'd ever meet, and she only wore it on Sundays. Why Sundays? Who knows? But she did, because of those verses you read.

Oddly enough, she ate shellfish with great relish. Yet she felt homosexuality was a sin. Inconsistent... Go figure.

It's just another example of convenience. One can never be wrong when interpreting a 2,000-year-old book. It does get comical at times when people apply it to modern life. If something from the bible doesn't make much sense in light of modern understanding, we simply decide it's allegorical. Or if it's not that big of a deal (shellfish), we just ignore it entirely.

Once you are able to step briefly outside of the worldview in which you're trapped, you can begin to read it as a book written by bronze-age tribesmen in a time of ignorance and isolation. Suddenly, much of it makes a lot more sense. There is plenty of universal and timeless wisdom to be found within that can apply to all people always, but most of it should be discarded.

Ah, there's even a convenient explanation for that -- the New Testament! Suddenly, the Old stuff ... well, we'll just pretend god forgot he said all that. ;-) But that's another topic...

[TEAMWORK]

What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? Wouldn't your assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" require extraordinary evidence itself?

In other words, the claim that a few elderly people built a wooden boat the size of a football stadium, managed to herd two of every kind of creature onboard (how'd they collect them from the other continents? How did they all fit onboard?), floated along while the entire earth was flooded to cover the tops of the highest mountains, then landed and repopulated the entire earth to the abundance we have today ... is an extraordinary claim. It's wild-ass nonsense and there is no evidence for it having happened whatsoever other than that someone wrote it down a long time ago.

I have no reason to believe such nonsense unless I see evidence for doing so. Any evidence would be a start.

Why do you believe such a ridiculous story?

[justme7]

What you read is a beautiful example of the different ways that people even today will apply parts of the bible to daily life. Where different means inconsistent.

My grandma, until the day she died, wore a small cloth covering on her hair, sort of like a doily (google it), every Sunday to church. She was a missionary for decades and one of the most godly women you'd ever meet, and she only wore it on Sundays. Why Sundays? Who knows? But she did, because of those verses you read.

Oddly enough, she ate shellfish with great relish. Yet she felt homosexuality was a sin. Inconsistent... Go figure.

It's just another example of convenience. One can never be wrong when interpreting a 2,000-year-old book. It does get comical at times when people apply it to modern life. If something from the bible doesn't make much sense in light of modern understanding, we simply decide it's allegorical. Or if it's not that big of a deal (shellfish), we just ignore it entirely.

Once you are able to step briefly outside of the worldview in which you're trapped, you can begin to read it as a book written by bronze-age tribesmen in a time of ignorance and isolation. Suddenly, much of it makes a lot more sense. There is plenty of universal and timeless wisdom to be found within that can apply to all people always, but most of it should be discarded.

Ah, there's even a convenient explanation for that -- the New Testament! Suddenly, the Old stuff ... well, we'll just pretend god forgot he said all that. ;-) But that's another topic...

do you really only see three options?

a. accept it and implement into daily living
b. chalk it up to allegory
c. ignore it as inconvenient

that belies an extremely limited worldview. and your consistent treatment (read: abuse) of the Bible further lends itself to the opinion that you aren't doing any real digging into the matter, but giving it the ole cursory approach indicative of the most elementary atheist.

In other words, the claim that a few elderly people built a wooden boat the size of a football stadium, managed to herd two of every kind of creature onboard (how'd they collect them from the other continents? How did they all fit onboard?), floated along while the entire earth was flooded to cover the tops of the highest mountains, then landed and repopulated the entire earth to the abundance we have today ... is an extraordinary claim. It's wild-ass nonsense and there is no evidence for it having happened whatsoever other than that someone wrote it down a long time ago.

I have no reason to believe such nonsense unless I see evidence for doing so. Any evidence would be a start.

Why do you believe such a ridiculous story?

i've underlined the areas wherein you crossed the line. it's these areas that make me question your true intent for posting itt.

[TEAMWORK]

Eight 500-year olds built the ark? You're saying Noah was the same age as his sons and their wives? I think many of your questions are addressed here: http://carm.org/could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals
As far as 8 people repopulating the earth in "such a short time," I'm not sure how short of a time you're thinking of here. If you're referencing the belief that the earth is 6000 years old, you might want to research the poor reasoning behind that.
The remainder of your questions all address the mind and providence of God, while also disregarding his omnipotence. Further, where does it say that his creation was perfect? As someone already mentioned, while these are good questions, do you believe that these went completely unaddressed for the past nearly 2000 years?

I said 500-year-olds to be succinct. I didn't feel the need to list each of their ages (I don't know them and it doesn't matter -- they were all several hundred years old, though ... [lol]). For you to pick on that of all things from my post is rather petty and I don't see the point it serves.

Your link does a common thing of using bible verses to support bible verses -- using the bible to prove itself.
-- "Did the flood really happen? Yes. Jesus said in Matt. 24:37-39 that the flood happened. If you can't trust Jesus, you can't trust anyone."
Jesus said so, in the bible. Therefore the bible is true.
-- "Did the flood cover all the earth? Yes it did. The depth of the flood waters is described in Gen. 7:19 as covering "all the high mountains under the entire heavens." Also, there are many references in the Bible to it being global: Gen. 6:1,4-5,12,13,17,19;7:4,6,10,19;8:3;9:15. There were 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:12), 110 days of flooding (Gen. 7:24) and 221 more days of draining (Gen. 8:1-5,13-14). That is a total of 371 days of flooding. That could not be a local flood."
Did the flood cover the whole earth like the bible says? Yes! Because the bible says so ... in several places!

"There are countless fossil deposits world-wide (fossilization occurs when organisms are buried rapidly within sediment.)"
- The existence of fossils is not proof of the entire world being flooded and every living creature outside the ark destroyed.

I can't believe people are defending this still. It's a ridiculous fairytale that no rational person would believe, but because it's in a holy book, otherwise-intelligent people will go to extraordinary lengths, reaching and grasping to find defense for it. You're much better off just saying "I believe it because it's in the bible and I believe the bible is god's word, and I believe in god." Of course that is open to far more criticism, but at least it's honest.

[TEAMWORK]

Rather than discuss this anymore here, I'll just link you to some sources of criticism of the story.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

This is entertaining:

[Fiyero]

Every scientific field in existence says it didn't happen? Really? What's the evidence contradicting it?

The geological column, the fossil record, the physics behind the flood, the problems with the Ark itself, the fact that there have been at least 5 mass extinctions in Earth's history that have wiped out nearly all life on Earth (the flood doesn't explain 4 of them), asteroid impacts, archaeology, etc. Are you aware that the Egyptian Kingdom was at its high point building the Great Pyramids in the middle of the flood?

You could start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The more logical explanation is that the story is based on a local flood in Mesopotamia and the story serves as a theological metaphor.

[TEAMWORK]

Justme7 -- calm down, please.

do you really only see three options?

No. (Options for what?) I was simply pointing out an example of the way that different parts of the bible are treated. Some parts are adhered to strictly and literally. Some are taken lightly or as a story. Some are flat ignored. I never said anything about options or only. Those are your words.

and your consistent treatment (read: abuse) of the Bible further lends itself to the opinion that you aren't doing any real digging into the matter, but giving it the ole cursory approach indicative of the most elementary atheist.

The bible can stand a bit of criticism. God can defend himself. You're acting like any criticism of it is wrong, or like I'm just calling it names or something. You know nothing of my understanding of the bible or the depth to which I've dug. Keep your labels to yourself.

i've underlined the areas wherein you crossed the line. it's these areas that make me question your true intent for posting itt.

Thanks for that. Are you my mother?

Do you have anything substantial to say? Anything you want to discuss?

[TEAMWORK]

Justme7, this is for you:
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

"Keep your identity small."

Peace.

[BuccoBruce]

I said 500-year-olds to be succinct. I didn't feel the need to list each of their ages (I don't know them and it doesn't matter -- they were all several hundred years old, though ... [lol]). For you to pick on that of all things from my post is rather petty and I don't see the point it serves.

Your link does a common thing of using bible verses to support bible verses -- using the bible to prove itself.
-- "Did the flood really happen? Yes. Jesus said in Matt. 24:37-39 that the flood happened. If you can't trust Jesus, you can't trust anyone."
Jesus said so, in the bible. Therefore the bible is true.
-- "Did the flood cover all the earth? Yes it did. The depth of the flood waters is described in Gen. 7:19 as covering "all the high mountains under the entire heavens." Also, there are many references in the Bible to it being global: Gen. 6:1,4-5,12,13,17,19;7:4,6,10,19;8:3;9:15. There were 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:12), 110 days of flooding (Gen. 7:24) and 221 more days of draining (Gen. 8:1-5,13-14). That is a total of 371 days of flooding. That could not be a local flood."
Did the flood cover the whole earth like the bible says? Yes! Because the bible says so ... in several places!

"There are countless fossil deposits world-wide (fossilization occurs when organisms are buried rapidly within sediment.)"
- The existence of fossils is not proof of the entire world being flooded and every living creature outside the ark destroyed.

I can't believe people are defending this still. It's a ridiculous fairytale that no rational person would believe, but because it's in a holy book, otherwise-intelligent people will go to extraordinary lengths, reaching and grasping to find defense for it. You're much better off just saying "I believe it because it's in the bible and I believe the bible is god's word, and I believe in god." Of course that is open to far more criticism, but at least it's honest.

I'm not "picking" on anything. We're discussing something pretty significant. If the ages don't matter, then why did you mention them and (again) get them wrong?
The reason the fact that Jesus said it is important is because is the central figure of the Christian faith. If he lied, the entire faith is moot.

As justme7 alluded to, you come across tremendously condescending and don't seem to be genuinely asking for responses like you initially stated you were. It's amazing how many times I see Christians get ridiculed for not taking the time to go back and forth in comparison to exchanges like these.

[Fiyero]

I'm not "picking" on anything. We're discussing something pretty significant. If the ages don't matter, then why did you mention them and (again) get them wrong?
The reason the fact that Jesus said it is important is because is the central figure of the Christian faith. If he lied, the entire faith is moot.

Jesus never said the flood was global, he merely alluded to the story to explain his theological point. Do you really think he would waste the time to explain Geophysics, hydrology, plate tectonics, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc. to the Apostles? No, he used their base knowledge to explain what he deemed was more important. You are aware that Jesus was a huge fan of parables and metaphor right?

[BuccoBruce]

The geological column, the fossil record, the physics behind the flood, the problems with the Ark itself, the fact that there have been at least 5 mass extinctions in Earth's history that have wiped out nearly all life on Earth (the flood doesn't explain 4 of them), asteroid impacts, archaeology, etc. Are you aware that the Egyptian Kingdom was at its high point building the Great Pyramids in the middle of the flood?

You could start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The more logical explanation is that the story is based on a local flood in Mesopotamia and the story serves as a theological metaphor.

The first few evidences you mentioned have already been addressed. I don't see how other mass extinctions would automatically rule out the flood. I'm also confused about your statement concerning the Egyptian kingdom. How do you have a date for the flood?

I've heard the position about it being a local flood, though I can't say that I'm currently entirely convinced on it.

[Swamp Dog]

Justme7 -- calm down, please.


No. (Options for what?) I was simply pointing out an example of the way that different parts of the bible are treated. Some parts are adhered to strictly and literally. Some are taken lightly or as a story. Some are flat ignored. I never said anything about options or only. Those are your words.


The bible can stand a bit of criticism. God can defend himself. You're acting like any criticism of it is wrong, or like I'm just calling it names or something. You know nothing of my understanding of the bible or the depth to which I've dug. Keep your labels to yourself.


Thanks for that. Are you my mother?

Do you have anything substantial to say? Anything you want to discuss?

So is this the way you treat all your hosts?
You are a guest here, try to act like one.

[BuccoBruce]

Jesus never said the flood was global, he merely alluded to the story to explain his theological point. Do you really think he would waste the time to explain Geophysics, hydrology, plate tectonics, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc. to the Apostles? No, he used their base knowledge to explain what he deemed was more important. You are aware that Jesus was a huge fan of parables and metaphor right?

I didn't claim he did. And yes, I'm aware, though his statement about the flood wasn't in a parable.

[Fiyero]

The first few evidences you mentioned have already been addressed. I don't see how other mass extinctions would automatically rule out the flood. I'm also confused about your statement concerning the Egyptian kingdom. How do you have a date for the flood?

The Bible only describes 1 mass extinction. When did the other 4 happen and why doesn't the Bible mention them? Didn't G-d promise never to wipe out the earth again? So why did he do it 4 more times?

Creationists date the flood based on the Genealogy in Genesis. Taken literally, the flood occurred in 2348 B.C. To dispute that date, you'd have to accept that the Biblical chronology and genealogy of the patriarchs is incomplete/inaccurate. And if you're willing to accept that, why would you be unwilling to concede a global flood didn't happen?

[justme7]

Justme7 -- calm down, please.


No. (Options for what?) I was simply pointing out an example of the way that different parts of the bible are treated. Some parts are adhered to strictly and literally. Some are taken lightly or as a story. Some are flat ignored. I never said anything about options or only. Those are your words.


The bible can stand a bit of criticism. God can defend himself. You're acting like any criticism of it is wrong, or like I'm just calling it names or something. You know nothing of my understanding of the bible or the depth to which I've dug. Calm down. Keep your labels to yourself.


Thanks for that. Are you my mother?

Do you have anything substantial to say? Anything you want to discuss?

Can you check your emotions a bit?

nothing i said was emotional in anyway. either you interpreted it that way because you tend to be more emotional and thereby read it into what you encounter or perhaps you inferred that because of my gender and aligned it with yet another one of your personal binaries--this one dictating gender norms--out of which you seem fond of acting. given the emotionality behind your above post, i'm thinking it's more a combo of both. so, i'll explicitly state: i'm not your mother. i'm not emotional. i'm not even rustled a little bit. i simply asked a question: do you really see that there are only three options? on the one hand, you want to go on about the complexities of the Bible, but then in the same fell swoop, you like to turn around and treat it with the utmost simplistic/reductionistic approach. you can't have it both ways. (and that said, you just went on, again, to reiterate the same exact three options about which i'd previously asked).

as for the Bible withstanding criticism, i absolutely agree. if you'd looked into the thread at all before making rash assumptions, you'd note that i point out quite a bit of it and that i use secular sources to do so. plenty of Christians itt are humble enough to admit that we don't have all the answers, we do have doubts, and we do see parts of the Bible that are difficult to interpret/believe/apply/reconcile (or all of the above) this side of Heaven. i've personally found that 1. God is big enough to handle all of my questions or doubts, and 2. my faith ends up "going deeper" when i allow myself the freedom to acknowledge these issues and press into them.

with that now fully fleshed out, i'll return to my previous assertion: you were completely out of line with the underlined portions of your post. you'll note that i didn't underline all of the rest of it... the parts were you weren't insulting a Text that is significant (at least) or sacred (at best) to those practicing the faith to which this thread is dedicated. that's rude, and i, for one, will not stand for you insulting the Bible or God itt. the rest of it was not underlined because you were raising your point with only thinly veiled insults. when you became flagrantly inappropriate, i pointed it out. if you wish to continue participating itt, i'm all for it if you're genuinely interested in dialogue as you claim, but your way of expressing any of it only shows that you're just trolling, trying to pick a fight, or get in a few cheap jabs at God's expense. nothxjeff.

[TEAMWORK]

So is this the way you treat all your hosts?
You are a guest here, try to act like one.

Excuse me... come again?

[TEAMWORK]

I'm not "picking" on anything. We're discussing something pretty significant. If the ages don't matter, then why did you mention them and (again) get them wrong?

I don't think you're seeing my point. I was just listing some of the claims from the story of the flood. Noah and his family were several hundred years old. Whether he was 400, 500, or 600 doesn't matter. It was eight really old people that built the ark and managed all those animals -- which is ridiculous. That was my point. But you knew that.

The reason the fact that Jesus said it is important is because is the central figure of the Christian faith. If he lied, the entire faith is moot.

Obviously, but that doesn't mean you can present "the whole world was covered in water as described in the bible because the bible says so" as evidence to support an unbelievable story.

[Swamp Dog]

Excuse me... come again?

Excuse me, does that not make sense?
This is the "Christian Thread".
You don't seem to be a Christian (apologies if I am wrong).
You are a guest.
Act like one instead of being belligerent.

[BuccoBruce]

The Bible only describes 1 mass extinction. When did the other 4 happen and why doesn't the Bible mention them? Didn't G-d promise never to wipe out the earth again? So why did he do it 4 more times?

Creationists date the flood based on the Genealogy in Genesis. Taken literally, the flood occurred in 2348 B.C. To dispute that date, you'd have to accept that the Biblical chronology and genealogy of the patriarchs is incomplete/inaccurate. And if you're willing to accept that, why would you be unwilling to concede a global flood didn't happen?

The 2348 date is based upon the belief that creation took place in 4004. I've not seen any reason to believe that.

[TEAMWORK]

justme7, I have in no way been rude, inappropriate, insulting, picking a fight, etc. If my posts disturb you so much, don't read them. You can choose with whom you interact. You addressed me personally, so I responded to you.

Now, do you have anything of substance to say that isn't about me?

[mainsqueeze530]

I have in no way been rude, inappropriate, insulting, picking a fight, etc. If my posts disturb you so much, don't read them.

or you can choose not to post in a "Christian thread" and claim our beliefs as ridiculous, wild-ass nonsense.

If you don't see how that can come off as a bit insulting, then you have bigger problems to worry about.

[TEAMWORK]

Excuse me, does that not make sense?
This is the "Christian Thread".
You don't seem to be a Christian (apologies if I am wrong).
You are a guest.
Act like one instead of being belligerent.

No, it does not make sense. I am not your guest so I will not act in any such way -- I have the same right to post here as you do. This is a public forum. There is no requirement that members of any particular thread be of any particular orientation, despite what someone chooses to label a thread. I have done nothing wrong in this thread and have not gotten personal even once, despite you and others doing so. You're free to ignore my posts if they disturb you.

And you know nothing about me, but I will accept your apology for assuming.

You are being rather judgmental and unwelcoming. We wouldn't want christians to get a reputation for being judgmental and unwelcoming now, would we?

[TEAMWORK]

or you can choose not to post in a "Christian thread" and claim our beliefs as ridiculous, wild-ass nonsense.

If you don't see how that can come off as a bit insulting, then you have bigger problems to worry about.

You are putting words in my mouth. I was referring to the story of noah's ark. It is wild-ass nonsense and a ridiculous story. I did not refer to christian beliefs as such.

Nice try.

[boseador]

Serious question to Christians:

Did Jesus ever create live birds from clay?

Thanks.

[Swamp Dog]

No, it does not make sense. I am not your guest so I will not act in any such way -- I have the same right to post here as you do. This is a public forum. There is no requirement that members of any particular thread be of any particular orientation, despite what someone chooses to label a thread. I have done nothing wrong in this thread and have not gotten personal even once, despite you and others doing so. You're free to ignore my posts if they disturb you.

And you know nothing about me, but I will accept your apology for assuming.

You are being rather judgmental and unwelcoming. We wouldn't want christians to get a reputation for being judgmental and unwelcoming now, would we?

I'll admit the very fact that you don't even realize that you are being rude and uncouth is kind of odd to me.
Explain exactly how I am being judgmental and unwelcoming.
If I acted in another thread the way you are here, I would not be shocked to have someone attempt to correct my attitude.
Do you really have no idea that you are acting in an aggressive manner?

[mainsqueeze530]

You are putting words in my mouth. I was referring to the story of noah's ark. It is wild-ass nonsense and a ridiculous story. I did not refer to christian beliefs as such.

Nice try.

the irony is strong in this one.

[Swamp Dog]

Serious question to Christians:

Did Jesus ever create live birds from clay?

Thanks.

I suppose he could have, but there in no (credible) reason to believe he did.

[Fiyero]

The 2348 date is based upon the belief that creation took place in 4004. I've not seen any reason to believe that.

Then you're rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis, since that date comes from the Genealogy listed in it. So again, why do you accept a global flood based on a literal reading of Genesis, but not the literal chronology of the people listed in it?