If Noah's flood was a legend why should anyone trust Jesus?

[PureX]

Who gets to decide what's denying evidence and what's seeing the thing called that and finding it insufficient?

We do.

That's what all this debate and contention is about. But none of this discredits the value of reason, and some people reason far better than others. So that with some luck and persistence, the debate can also illuminate some of us, and not just divide us.

No, better to leave off that sort of thing all together.

Right, like you aren't popping up to play the religious apologist at the drop of nearly every negative religious observation! :chuckle:

It never amounts to much outside of an invitation to discord, stumbling, and poor conduct that convinces no one of anything worthwhile.

Nine times out of ten we aren't going to get to know what the result is. We just think we do.

If it doesn't work for him he'll change.

Man! You're an optimist! "He'll" be fantastically fortunate if he even manages to realize it's not working for him. Let alone find the will, the courage, and the wisdom to change!

Everyone who thinks they have a thing right feels that way.

But there are still lots of people who don't think they've already got all the right answers. And they can still hear, see, and learn.

The atheist and the theist have a fundamentally different context for how things came to be and continue. This is that line of demarcation.

I think you're defining theism by your own, and that's too narrow for the reality of it.

Unless you consider the resurrection of a body three days dead to be something other than the intervention of God into the otherwise natural process of decay, you're in the group.

I consider it part of a religious story, intended to convey an idea, and a message. No supernatural feats occurred in the writing of this story. No supernatural feats are required to grasp the idea, and the message. And no promises of supernatural feats are being made through it, that I am aware of.

So the insistence on believing in them is unnecessary, irrational, and encourages dishonesty. All we have to do is recognize that we're reading a story, and the problem is resolved.

 

[Town Heretic]

Who gets to decide sincerity and denial?

We do.

And when we don't agree?

That's what all this debate and contention is about.

No, the debate is about our differences, not our sincerity, not our honesty either, unless we make repeated objectively verifiable errors.

Right, like you aren't popping up to play the religious apologist at the drop of nearly every negative religious observation! :chuckle:

You must have misread my objection, which was to the heated, non-salvific disputes within the Body.

Man! You're an optimist! "He'll" be fantastically fortunate if he even manages to realize it's not working for him. Let alone find the will, the courage, and the wisdom to change!

Who gets to decide who that fellow is?

But there are still lots of people who don't think they've already got all the right answers. And they can still hear, see, and learn.

I don't know many people who think they have all the right answers, though I know a great many people who think the answers they have are right.

I think you're defining theism by your own, and that's too narrow for the reality of it.

I'd say if you have a different contextual line than God for the difference between a theistic perspective and an atheistic perspective you have a mistaken notion of at least one of those and possibly both.

I consider it part of a religious story, intended to convey an idea, and a message.

A message from whom? And you're right back to the root of the thing.

No supernatural feats occurred in the writing of this story.

I don't know what you mean by that. The Bible contains any number of events that cannot be the product of natural order. Resurrection is one of those. Christ died and rose from the dead after three days. That will never happen naturally.

The Christian believes that reality. If a man doesn't, he isn't, no matter if he changes his last name to Christian. It's the salvific root of the faith and orthodoxy.

No supernatural feats are required to grasp the idea, and the message.

I'd agree that reading is rarely accomplished by supernatural means, though comprehension for some would almost appear to require a miracle.

And no promises of supernatural feats are being made through it, that I am aware of.

Then you have a horrible translation. You should try the King James. Even the newest isn't half bad. Eternal life is something promised by scripture, among other things.

So the insistence on believing in them is unnecessary, irrational, and encourages dishonesty.

No truth will ever encourage dishonesty though dishonest men will use nearly any truth to advance less virtuous schemes and notions. Just so, many a corrupt politician has been sworn in with a Bible.

All we have to do is recognize that we're reading a story, and the problem is resolved.

I'd say that it's important to understand the difference between the inspired and when you're being handed a line.

 

[Ktoyou]

The view that Genesis is a historical account was accepted by Christ, who is also the Creator. ...



Martin Luther argued..."When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are."



In order for Christians to accept evolutionism, they need dismiss the creation account...the flood account...other scripture referring to the flood and creation as a historical event....they need change the gospel dismissing the reason why we have physical death; and why Christ had to physically die...and they need dismiss the foundation for every Christian doctrine.*

6days is right. ML said if you can't deal with it mentally, just believe in it. God knows best.

 

[Jonahdog]

6days is right. ML said if you can't deal with it mentally, just believe in it. God knows best.

Ignore rational thought?

 

[Town Heretic]

Ignore rational thought?

You'll have to proffer some before it can be ignored.

Now what have we accomplished?

 

[Jonahdog]

You'll have to proffer some before it can be ignored.

Now what have we accomplished?

Really, someone suggest following Martin Luther--"if you can't deal with it mentally, just believe it" and I'm accused of not providing a rational thought?
One of the most interesting things about being human is the desire/need to understand. Apparently fundamentalist Christians do not share that desire/need.

 

[Town Heretic]

Really, someone suggest following Martin Luther--"if you can't deal with it mentally, just believe it" and I'm accused of not providing a rational thought?

Right. When your response is to offer nothing more than an assumptive, inferential insult you really haven't distinguished yourself following your own presumptive complaint.

One of the most interesting things about being human is the desire/need to understand. Apparently fundamentalist Christians do not share that desire/need.

Well, you could look into it, or just do what you did there and continue to fail your own litmus.

Up to you, really. I gave you a substantive answer to your early complaints and some problems to contend with. You seem more comfortable in the short declarative. Not sure what you mean to accomplish by it though.

 

[Krsto]

Ok - but if the world 'destroyed by water' (2 Peter 3:6) was a fable then the world to be destroyed by fire might also be a future fable (ibid. v.7). A local fire in a large city? Region of a country?

Why should we take Peter's / Jesus' warnings seriously?

Why should I believe Jesus?

So you would not believe Jesus should you find out he taught using fiction? Really? What about parables?

 

[Jonahdog]

Right. When your response is to offer nothing more than an assumptive, inferential insult you really haven't distinguished yourself following your own presumptive complaint.


Well, you could look into it, or just do what you did there and continue to fail your own litmus.

Up to you, really. I gave you a substantive answer to your early complaints and some problems to contend with. You seem more comfortable in the short declarative. Not sure what you mean to accomplish by it though.

I'm channeling Stripe.

 

[6days]

So you would not believe Jesus should you find out he taught using fiction? Really? What about parables?

Jeaus taught with parables.
Do you always have trouble understanding literature....or just God'sWord. He does not tell the stories as true events or real history. Names of people are not used. There is a number of ways to know that he is not necessarily relating a real event.
Jesus however did refer two people from the Genesis account such as able as a real person.
pfffft..... evutionists

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm channeling Stripe.

Without going into anything but how you see him...why would you do that? Would you try to out "N" a racist?

 

[Sonnet]

So you would not believe Jesus should you find out he taught using fiction? Really? What about parables?

But the parables are identified as such.

 

[Caino]

But the parables are identified as such.

To me the Bible is like the newspaper, one can get a general idea of the news with the understanding that the reporter is human and even bias. The Jewish converts to the Jesus movement wanted Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah as the Jews conceived of him based on the Hebrew writings. But he wasn't, he left without doing some of the key things that he Messiah was to do.

Man religiously speculates a lot and that speculation becomes erroneous expectation.

 

[User Name]

Good arguments to throw doubt on the Noachian flood (shame the videos were mocking).

May I ask you, User Name, why have put your faith in Jesus? If the videos are right, then, at best, Jesus was disingenuous regarding Noah. At worst, He was in error. Either way, can you seriously argue that He is trustworthy?

2 Corinthians 5:7 says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." Science is walking by sight. If one wants to have faith, then just believe.

 

[PureX]

2 Corinthians 5:7 says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." Science is walking by sight. If one wants to have faith, then just believe.

Do you really think the intent of that quote was to promote willful ignorance? To propose that we deliberately ignore the evidence of our senses?

 

[User Name]

Do you really think the intent of that quote was to promote willful ignorance? To propose that we deliberately ignore the evidence of our senses?

I'm saying that science cannot be expected to confirm or validate statements of faith. A definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." In other words, the physical sciences investigate natural processes by observing and testing what we can see or detect with physical instruments. By contrast, faith is explicitly defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof;" or as Heb 11:1 puts it, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Young earth creationism is fundamentally a statement of faith because it asserts that God acted through supernatural processes. Science appeals to natural processes alone, whereas YE creationism appeals to the miraculous.

 

[Stripe]

I'm saying that science cannot be expected to confirm or validate statements of faith.

Which shows (again) that you do not understand science.

The idea is irrelevant. As long as it is testable and falsifiable, it does not matter what the source of an idea is, science can have its say.

And as luck would have it, a global flood is nothing but testable and falsifiable.

 

[Stripe]

Faith is explicitly defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof;" or as Heb 11:1 puts it, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

:darwinsm:

I love it when evolutionists debunk their own nonsense. :chuckle:

Young earth creationism is fundamentally a statement of faith because it asserts that God acted through supernatural processes. Science appeals to natural processes alone, whereas YE creationism appeals to the miraculous.

Nope. It doesn't matter what the source of an idea is; as long as it is testable and falsifiable, science can have its say.

 

[PureX]

I'm saying that science cannot be expected to confirm or validate statements of faith.

Sure it can, depending on the statement. Science can certainly validate or invalidate statements regarding natural processes. That's what science does. So if the 'faithful' are professing to know about such processes, science can test them.

A definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." In other words, the physical sciences investigate natural processes by observing and testing what we can see or detect with physical instruments. By contrast, faith is explicitly defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof;"…

Unfortunately, many 'believers' don't confine their beliefs and statements to just those aspects of reality that cannot be investigated, physically. And when science shows their beliefs to be wrong, they attack the science.

Young earth creationism is fundamentally a statement of faith because it asserts that God acted through supernatural processes. Science appeals to natural processes alone, whereas YE creationism appeals to the miraculous.

Yes, but science has shown that that particular "miracle" didn't happen the way the YECs claim it did. Yet they would rather dismiss the facts of science (and physical reality) than admit that their beliefs in this instance were wrong. This is a deliberate denial of reality, which is fundamentally dishonest. It's dishonesty that they try to hide behind the concept of "blind faith".

 

[Jose Fly]

As long as it is testable and falsifiable, it does not matter what the source of an idea is, science can have its say.

So how do you propose we test God? And what would potentially falsify "God made it that way"?

Let the dodging begin.....:chuckle: