The Global Flood

by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    A Christian,

    Preaching the Christian faith is one thing, defending it on rational or scientific grounds (= apologetics) is quite another. Only the latter Kierkegaard called the 'Judas kiss of stupidity' -- and I guess he really got the point about the deliberately ambiguous parables which were meant not to be understood by anyone (whether this is a "'thought control' device", as Frankie suggested, is another question -- a good one btw).

    You started by offering an alternate explanation for the Eden narrative, I commented that it doesn't suit the Genesis text. I stood in the field of Bible exegesis, but you didn't want to discuss it further in this perspective. I found that strange, because twisting the text would be a very poor way of defending it in the first place -- although this is a common practice among apologists.

    From one version of the Judas kiss to another, shall I recall Oscar Wilde's?

    Yet each man kills the thing he loves By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

    In the Book of Job (chapter 13) too there is a strong criticism of apologetics (Job's "friends" were trying to defend God against Job's charges), which is seldom noticed; according to Job, God wouldn't like to be defended in a partial way:

    As for you, you whitewash with lies;
    all of you are worthless physicians.
    If you would only keep silent,
    that would be your wisdom!
    Hear now my reasoning,
    and listen to the pleadings of my lips.
    Will you speak falsely for God,
    and speak deceitfully for him?
    Will you show partiality toward him,
    will you plead the case for God?
    Will it be well with you when he searches you out?
    Or can you deceive him, as one person deceives another?
    He will surely rebuke you
    if in secret you show partiality.
    Will not his majesty terrify you,
    and the dread of him fall upon you?
    Your maxims are proverbs of ashes,
    your defenses are defenses of clay.
  • Norm
    Norm

    deleted

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    It seems that a fair number of Christian apologists claim that Christianity is a religion of tolerance and acceptance. But the Bible itself -- the manual for Christianity, I presume -- proves that it is not. Here are some salient passages.

    Jesus said:

    34 Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! No, I came to bring a sword. 35 I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Your enemies will be right in your own household! (Matthew 10:34-36; NLT)

    That doesn't sound like tolerance and acceptance to me.

    Now of course, some Christians will claim that Jesus really meant that non-Christian opposers would be the ones who actually showed the intolerance. That was certainly the case with those of the early Christians who were persecuted merely for believing differently from their persecutors, but after Christianity gained the upper hand in various places, it most certainly displayed massive intolerance. The Catholic Church, which first compiled the New Testament, is the best example. Martin Luther, John Calvin, their direct followers, and countless other Christians went so far as to burn people at the stake who disagreed with them. The cult that most of us came out of is among the most intolerant of Christian religions. Yet they all claim that they're doing the will of God and Christ. And they all justify their actions with the scriptures. However, "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit" is another passage that comes to mind.

    Some apologists will be inclined to claim that such people are false Christians. Perhaps they are, but as Norm said, the intolerance is built into the very fabric of the Christian faith, so no matter how 'good' or 'bad' a Christian is judged to be by other Christians or whoever who chooses to do the judging, you can't get around that basic fact. This is easy to prove with a few scriptures.

    The apostle Paul said how to avoid being killed by God in a "fiery judgment":

    Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. (Acts 16:31; NLT)

    Conversely, if you don't "believe on the Lord Jesus, you will not be saved."

    Jesus said that there is only one way to get "saved":

    Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son so he can give glory back to you. 2 For you have given him authority over everyone in all the earth. He gives eternal life to each one you have given him. 3 And this is the way to have eternal life -- to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth. (John 17:1-3; NLT)

    Obviously, those who don't "know" God and Christ will not gain the eternal life that is the goal of salvation. Jesus stated what the opposite of this "eternal life" is:

    I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. (John 10:28; NLT)

    Is this "eternal life" and its opposite, eternal death, applicable to all mankind, or just to "the household of Christ", as certain apologists claim? Note these passages:

    For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
    And all who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the Son will never experience eternal life, but the wrath of God remains upon them." (John 3:16, 36; NLT)

    Note that the NT equates "the wrath of God" with the eternal death of those who fail to gain salvation.

    The apostle Peter emphasized the exclusive nature of the belief of Christians:

    There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them. (Acts 4:12; NLT)

    What is the judgment that God brings upon all non-Christians?

    7 And God will provide rest for you who are being persecuted and also for us when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven. He will come with his mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don't know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power 10 when he comes to receive glory and praise from his holy people. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; NLT)

    Is that tolerance and acceptance? If you think so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    How about the fate of those of us who have presented arguments that the notion of a "ransom sacrifice" is silly?

    I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. (1 Corinthians 1:18; NLT)

    Is that tolerance and acceptance?

    The surrounding text of the above passage is interesting, because it's almost a parallel of some of the discussions in this thread:

    18 I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas." 20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; NLT)

    The passage claims that "God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense", but where does it show that God actually does so? The fact is, it doesn't. Nor does the NT do so anywhere else. Instead we find a lot of unsupported claims. Examples of all of this empty rhetoric can be found in this thread. Critics pose pointed questions, and instead of solid answers, are given excuses and notions made up out of whole cloth. And of course, they are accused of being or implied to be wicked, sinful, inclined to pursue selfish desires, etc.

    And again we find intolerance, because it is demanded that intelligent skeptics believe without actual evidence, and are threatened with death from God if they don't.

    Of course, such accusations arise because the Bible itself equates unbelief with wickedness:

    16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. 18 There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their judgment is based on this fact: The light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 They hate the light because they want to sin in the darkness. They stay away from the light for fear their sins will be exposed and they will be punished. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light gladly, so everyone can see that they are doing what God wants. (John 3:16-21; NLT)

    So the very fact that certain of us no longer believe "extraordinary things" because of a lack of extraordinary evidence is enough to condemn us as "haters of light", "lovers of darkness", "sinners", "evil", "fearful of punishment" and so forth. Yes indeed, Christianity is a religion of tolerance and acceptance.

    How about those of us who were once Christians but who have rejected it, even for good reasons?

    4 For it is impossible to restore to repentance those who were once enlightened -- those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come -- 6 and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people to repentance again because they are nailing the Son of God to the cross again by rejecting him, holding him up to public shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6; NLT)
    26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received a full knowledge of the truth, there is no other sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There will be nothing to look forward to but the terrible expectation of God's judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. 28 Anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Think how much more terrible the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God and have treated the blood of the covenant as if it were common and unholy. Such people have insulted and enraged the Holy Spirit who brings God's mercy to his people. 30 For we know the one who said, "I will take vengeance. I will repay those who deserve it." (Hebrews 10:26-30; NLT)

    If the commonly accepted view holds, that one ought to be condemned for intolerance, then as far as the Bible and the Christian faith are concerned: "by your words you will be condemned."

    AlanF

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    An excellent passage for would be apologists, Narkissos! It has long been one of my favorites.

    Here it is from another translation:

    Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God?s case for him? Be careful that he doesn?t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn?t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)

    It appears to me that God, if he had anything to do with the sentiments expressed, is a lot more interested in honesty than in blind faith -- even blind faith in him.

    AlanF

  • a Christian
    a Christian

    Nark,

    You wrote: You started by offering an alternate explanation for the Eden narrative, I commented that it doesn't suit the Genesis text.

    I disagreed with you. I believe my explanation is the only explanation that fully fits the text. However, I didn't see the point in going into it all with you, since you were also in the same post arguing a point of simple logic I had made. I said that God is not "free" to disagree with Himself and we are "free" to so so. You seemed to want to debate that point. I figured if you couldn't agree with me on that it was doubful you would agree with me on anything else. So I moved on. I hope to find time to discuss the Genesis text with you another time.

  • one
    one

    I missed the whole game

    A cristian,

    For some, like myself, that evidence came to them as a result of long personal studies of both science and the Scriptures which convinced them that the Bible is inspired by God.

    You are "conviced" that the Bible is inspired by God, but you are not willing to share exactly how you arrived to such conclusions.. Proving that the bible is inspired may be the appropiate starting point.

    Every child whom God adopts He adopts personally.

    Can you explain the criteria "He" uses for adopting?

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine
    Greenpalmtreestillmine

    AlanF wrote:

    An excellent passage for would be apologists, Narkissos! It has long been one of my favorites.

    Here it is from another translation:

    Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God?s case for him? Be careful that he doesn?t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn?t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)

    It appears to me that God, if he had anything to do with the sentiments expressed, is a lot more interested in honesty than in blind faith -- even blind faith in him.

    The setting of that quote is Job's defense against his supposed friends who are in fact trying to convince him that in some way he must have offended God and in so doing has brought calamity upon himself. Zophar said in Job 11:12, "If you direct your heart rightly, you will stretch out your hands toward him. If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away, and do not let wickedness reside in your tents. Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish; you will be secure, and will not fear."

    This is why Job answers in chapter 12, "Will you speak falsely for God; and speak deceitfully for him? Will you show partiality toward him, will you plead the case for God?" His so called friends were speaking falsely for God and in actuality were attempting to raise up their own rightousness. They really had no interest in defending God so much as putting down Job. Many agnostic/atheist apologists do the same.

    Sabrina

  • a Christian
    a Christian

    Since I have been about the only one in this thread defending the flood account and other parts of Genesis as not necessarily being in conflict with science, I assume I am the one who is said to be "defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments." I certainly admit it is possible to do just that. But I do not believe I have done so.

    It certainly does not surprise me that some on this board are now plainly calling me a liar or implying I am such. Sadly, such attacks on Christians are all too common here.

    One,

    You wrote: You are "convinced" that the Bible is inspired by God, but you are not willing to share exactly how you arrived to such conclusions.. Proving that the bible is inspired may be the appropriate starting point.

    I have done so at some length in times past on this forum. Due to my past experience, I do not now have the inclination to do so here again. I also do not have the time right now to respond to all the criticisms which, again judging from past experience, would almost certainly come my way from this forum. If you or someone else here wishes, you may e-mail me privately. If your e-mail leads me to believe you are a sincere seeker of truth, and not just a Bible/Christian basher, I will discuss the matter with you privately.

    Mike ([email protected])

  • one
    one
    I also do not have the time right now to respond to all the criticisms which

    I understand that, also i appeared too late on this thread. I will email you.

    for the benefit of the public, during the mean time, i feel free to ask

    Does the Genesis account reveal that the preparation and the flood itself was global?

    Does the Cristian message about the flood, as presented in the "scriptures" reveal an understanding of a global flood by the writers?.

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine
    Greenpalmtreestillmine

    One,

    Does the Cristian message about the flood, as presented in the "scriptures" reveal an understanding of a global flood by the writers?.

    Yes, I believe those that transmitted the flood material to later generations thought it is encompassed what was for them the whole earth.

    Sabrina

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit