The Global Flood

by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • one
    one

    A Cristian,

    That our earth has never been completely covered with water

    yeah i noticed that comment from you, but since some agnostic non cristian here also beleive that, i could not find why you and them are "fighting"

  • a Christian
    a Christian

    One,

    Because, even though I don't understand all parts of the Bible as the "fundamentalists" do, I still believe in God and that the Bible was inspired by Him.

    Well, gotta run. I'll most likely be gone for the next few days.

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine
    Greenpalmtreestillmine

    One,

    I'll just say this for now because it applies to both.

    I do not believe the OT was ever meant to be a perfect representation of ancient historical events. I believe the OT contains truth, prophetic allegory, direct prophecies, wise sayings and songs; all having their purpose. I believe the flood account, what for us would be a local event compared to the rest of the earth, was to the inhabitants of that area so comprehensive that for them it was the whole earth. Similar to the terrible Tsunami of this past weekend, for that area of the world their whole world was changed in a moment. If they had had no communications with other peoples and had not traveled outside of their area on earth, it would have seemed to them that the ocean had come up upon the whole earth. And for them; it did!

    But the fact that the flood was a local event does not in any way take away from it's use as a prophetic picture of the whole earth. Just as Jesus used it in the NT. Fundamentalists do the Bible a great disservice when they claim the OT is to be understood literally.

    Have a happy New Year!!

    Sabrina

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    If it was just a local flood, then what does it prove? It was just another flood like many others. Should indonesians feel that god has visited his anger on them?

    According to the story, noah knew the flood was coming. How do you know that detail was true? If human foibles of the time left them w the idea that it was a flood covering the whole earth when it was only local, how do we know that it was true that god spoke to noah about it ahead of time, or that they even built an ark? Maybe the survivers, in their shock and awe generated those stories to explain it to themselves and their kids.

    S

  • toreador
    toreador
    "Lesson imo: We should neither think we know the mind of God,"

    Yeah, who could possibly figure him out?

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine
    Greenpalmtreestillmine

    AlanF,

    That may be, but the general point still stands: it's self-defeating to defend God on any point whatsoever by means of lies and deceit. Do you not agree?

    Yes, I do.

    : Many agnostic/atheist apologists do the same. Do what, exactly? Lie and deceive in order to put God down? Or what? And for what motive?

    I wrote: "They really had no interest in defending God so much as putting down Job." Based on many responses and reactions on this board towards Christians, yes, I believe many agnostics and atheists are more interested in finding fault with Christians than in defending God or sometimes even truth. But do they lie? No not intentionally. I do believe however some are very willing to stretch the truth or the text in order to prove their point. But many Christians do that also.

    Do you think, from my posts in this thread, that I've attempted to deceive anyone? Note that I'm an agnostic.

    No. Let me ask you a question: Do you think it is possible to have a discussion with a Christian that does not involve personal insults or "poor reading comprehension" aspersions, or ridicule tossed from either side? Can agnostics and atheists who call out that Christianity is intolerant have enough tolerance themselves to respect another person's religious beliefs? It's funny how Christians are called on to be tolerant by the very people who have shown themselves to be very intolerant of the Christian faith.

    Have a Happy New Year, AlanF!

    Sabrina

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Howdy Sabrina,

    :: That may be, but the general point still stands: it's self-defeating to defend God on any point whatsoever by means of lies and deceit. Do you not agree?

    : Yes, I do.

    Thank God!

    :: Many agnostic/atheist apologists do the same. Do what, exactly? Lie and deceive in order to put God down? Or what? And for what motive?

    : I wrote: "They really had no interest in defending God so much as putting down Job." Based on many responses and reactions on this board towards Christians, yes, I believe many agnostics and atheists are more interested in finding fault with Christians than in defending God or sometimes even truth.

    I'm a bit confused by your statement. Atheists certainly don't want to defend God, because they don't believe in him. Agnostics are not usually interested, either, since by definition they don't know whether some sort of God exists. Of course, there are all sorts of variations. Some, like me, absolutely don't believe in the Christian God (for reasons I won't go into in this post) but leave open the question of a more general Supreme Designer or whatever. So I don't see how the notions of "finding fault with Christians" and "defending God" can be compared in the way you've done. I will agree that non-Christians of all sorts are sometimes more interested in finding fault with Christians than in the truth, but that's almost a non sequitur because a great many people stretch the truth for any number of reasons.

    : But do they lie? No not intentionally. I do believe however some are very willing to stretch the truth or the text in order to prove their point. But many Christians do that also.

    Indeed.

    :: Do you think, from my posts in this thread, that I've attempted to deceive anyone? Note that I'm an agnostic.

    : No.

    Nor do I.

    : Let me ask you a question: Do you think it is possible to have a discussion with a Christian that does not involve personal insults or "poor reading comprehension" aspersions, or ridicule tossed from either side?

    Yes.

    : Can agnostics and atheists who call out that Christianity is intolerant have enough tolerance themselves to respect another person's religious beliefs?

    Sure, but one has to be careful in how one defines "respect". I acknowledge the fact that some people believe in astrology, and I don't do anything to stop them from believing it. But I certainly don't respect the pseudo-science of astrology, and I don't respect the people who believe in it, because to believe in such clap-trap one has to cast aside all semblance of reasonableness. One has to have some standards, no?

    Discussion boards like this exist for the purpose of discussion. Often, discussions are about conflicting interpretations or opinions. So there's bound to be disagreement, sometimes a bit heated, especially when subjects like religion or politics are the topic. No surprise here. Point is: if one can't take the heat, don't post, because there'll probably be someone who disagrees.

    Something you ought to understand about a number of non-Christians on this board: they've seen it all before, and are tired of evasions. I, for example, long ago became sick of the evasions of the JWs. When I see evasion on the part of any poster, on any subject in which I'm interested, it tends to stimulate me to see how far I can push to see how far the poster will go in his or her evasions. While this sometimes becomes something of a game, it usually retains a serious component, because if real answers are given, there's a good possibility that a reasonable critic will change his mind. For example, "a Christian" has consistently evaded my questions, even though I pointed it out and took him to task for it. If you want proof, go back and read my posts and extract the questions, and see if you can find a single answer to the question that actually results in resolution. You won't find any. So I'm sure you can understand why some critics get a bit frustrated. But if he could provide real, factual, solid answers, I would gladly reconsider my entire agnostic and unbelieving position.

    Another example: has any Christian apologist even acknowledged my post showing that Christianity itself is inherently intolerant? No. I think the reason is clear.

    Another thing you ought to understand about some of us critics is that we dislike when apologists ignore a point of discussion and answer a completely different one. Or fail to deal with an important point at all. I can give you a number of examples from this thread, if you like.

    Yet another thing that frustrates critics is when apologists claim to be able to give solid answers to a criticism, but when called on to do, so fail completely, and then accuse the critics of being intellectually obstinate, obtuse, failing to be decent persons, etc. I'm sure you can find examples of this tactic in this thread.

    In the face of such frustration, not everyone can maintain calm objectivity. I certainly can't always do it, but I try.

    : It's funny how Christians are called on to be tolerant by the very people who have shown themselves to be very intolerant of the Christian faith.

    I think you're missing the point: the critics I've seen post on this thread are not calling on Christians to be tolerant. They're pointing out that the claim by certain Christian apologists that the Christian faith is inherently tolerant is wrong. I've reread pages 4-7 of this thread and I see nothing that would support your claim that, by some unspecified posters, "Christians are called on to be tolerant". This is a good example of what can produce frustration in us critics: you somehow invented a claim that was never made (i.e., "Christians are called on to be tolerant ..."), and then implied that the people doing the calling are hypocrites, further implying that all critics are hypocrites. Perhaps that's not what you really meant, but it certainly reads that way to me.

    : Have a Happy New Year, AlanF!

    You too, Sabrina!

    AlanF

  • one
    one
    In the face of such frustration, not everyone can maintain calm objectivity. I certainly can't always do it, but I try.

    I understand the above statement 100%

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    a Christian

    So, you lie about my initial post, by saying I showed no respect, and you don't even have the common decency to apologies?

    Pfff! Fine, as long as I know where I stand with you.

    I am saying IF the god of the Universe plays games with his creation, I find this highly offensive as my future is Dependant upon guessing right. As I am supposedly made in his image, if I find the idea repulsive and abhorrent, it also means I don't for a second believe such nonsense; the idea that god could be so petty and vindictive is ludicrous.

    I say;

    "If god exists, I think he is far grander and more wonderful than you think he is.

    No games, just love."

    You say;

    I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. First of all, you use profanity towards the God of the Bible, "if he exists."

    You unwittingly underline what I have said here. I actually do not diminish the name of god in anyway. Just as you would object to THE IDEA of a god that needed the hearts of sacrificial victims ripped from their bodies (Quetzalcoatl), I object to YOUR IDEA of a god that plays games.

    I don't bad-mouth god as I conceive he might be, I bad-mouth what I see as a primitive and disgusting representation of what god is like, just as you would.

    But, it is not about god, is it? It is about you. I am not attacking god but the idea of the Christian god put forth by people who cling to a belief of Biblical inspiration.

    You don't like your definition of god being attacked. You are so self-righteous as to assume YOU are right about god, and that I am wrong, even though all you have done thus far to try and back-up your beliefs is make stuff up. And because I don't bow to YOUR opinion, you accuse me of profanity.

    How do you think Jesus felt when he was exposed to people who went to a piece of paper for definitions and rules when discussing god, rather than looking to their hearts? I seem to remember he loathed them; "scribes, Pharisees, offspring of serpents", wasn't it?

    You then say, "Even if you explain away an un-scientific god in Genesis, you then have to explain away the blood-thirsty tribal god in the other four books of the Pentateuch (sp?)."

    From that I can gather that it will most likely make no difference to you how well anyone here manages to show that Genesis does not contradict science,

    You have utterly failed to show "that Genesis does not contradict science". If you did, you might find your audience more receptive. However, all you have done is make stuff up, and we are expected to admire you for it?! How vain are you?

    , or how well anyone here manages to answer your concerns about the other books of the Pentateuch, you will always have another reason for believing the Bible cannot possibly be inspired by God.

    Again, cultic psychology where the RIGHT to question is disputed. No attempt to deal with the implied question; "how can a god worthy of worship ask his people to kill an entire town, apart from virgin girls?" My daughter (now 14) figured out what their fate was ALL BY HERSELF a few years ago. Gang rape by soldiers, even if redefined as 'slavery and concubinage', is still teenage girls being raped (according to the Bible) as a direct consequence of divine commands.

    Rather than accept that a bronze-age tribal god who did beastly things is nothing to do with god as he actually is, you attack the morals of people who think god could not be so flawed and human by asserting that no matter what proofs were presented they would still not believe - when all they might be disbelieving is a god who commands mass rape.

    Another lie from 'a Christian'. And who is the father of the lie? Hmmmm?

    For one, you have NO proofs. You combine an argument of adverse consequences with a straw man fallacy ("EVEN IF there was proof YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE").

    Your biggest reason may be that you do not believe a "God" even exists.

    I certainly can't prove god exists. But that doesn't mean he doesn't. However, I notice rather than address the question "why is proof of god required?", you again choose to criticize me. Would you have criticized the Boreans for questioning what they were taught?

    All I do is expose you to the same level of criticism as they would have, using available written material and my mind to discern whether the tribal god story you keep on banging-on about has anything to do with god.

    Your reasons for not believing in God may actually have nothing to do with the Bible.

    Yeah, you know, it is funny that. Your reasons for not believing in the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. Yet, because I don't accept the Bible as reliable and accurate but TEST it against reality and morality, you falsely (another lie) say my reasons for not believing have nothing to do with the Bible.

    What a massive lie (yes, I know you used 'may', but it didn't change the intended slur); we have been discussing how the Bible fails to match our knowledge of science or chronology, how can the Bible's manifest deficiencies in this area not influence my belief in it as a book?

    I may be wrong about this. I hope I am. But I don't have the time right now to find out.

    I am convinced beyond all doubt that the same God who created the universe inspired the writing of the Bible.

    And there are Muslims equally convinced of the Quran's veracity. And others who also believe in the Bible but will disagree with you on various points. Just because it is your opinion doesn't make it so, a Christian.

    But what has convinced me most likely will not convince you. And that is no knock on you. This thread was entitled, "The Global Flood". It was not entitled, "Prove God exists."

    Ah, so if it turns out the Global Flood is utter nonsense, then this in no way has knock-on considerations as regards the Bibles accuracy or inspiration or indeed the existence of the putative author? Does keeping thoughts in boxes stop one unpleasant discovery (there was no Global flood) unraveling your entire belief system? You just ignore the implications? Oh, no, I know, you make stuff up, that's right isn't it?

    If it had been I probably would not have posted in it. For I believe God gives every child He adopts all the proof they need to put their faith in Him.

    Isn't it funny how everyone who pushes the concept of an elect thinks they are part of it?

    Sort yourself put a Christian. Stop lying about what I say and think, and most important of all, stop lying to yourself.

    Why not actually answer the questions about the wisdom of linking ones beliefs to a bronze-age tribal god?

    What happened to worshiping god IN SPIRIT and IN TRUTH?

    You seem hung up on TEXT and TRADITION.

    Worship god as he might be, not as a primative pastoral culture saw him.

    It might be attractive (as you can then literally take other sections which confirm various beliefs you happen to like (like the 'elect') to make yourself feel good). But is it Christ-like?

    One

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

    No. But it can be read that way.

    When it says 'tops of the highest mountains' one could actually argue that people resident in Mesopotamia had traveled the word measuring the height of every mountain and had observers at the top of each equipped with carrier pigeons to confirm that each high one had been covered.

    On the other hand 'world', 'all of' and 'highest mountains' might just be missing 'that our people know of' to make what is pretty obvious obvious enough for everyone to agree; that if the account was linked to a historical event it was local in nature.

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

    I believe that the 1st C (or whatever) authors of the NT believed it was a Global event too.

    The reason why a Christian is fighting with people that they might agree with, is that despite the fact the Bible is as unscientific as most bronze-age literature, a Christian is still insisting that it is scientific and making up stuff not in the Bible to make his argument work... oh, and then getting pissy when people point out his suppositions are pure fantasy and not a good way to show the Bible is scientific.

  • Norm
    Norm

    Hi Little Toe,

    You said:

    " totally disagree with the perspective you present here. The reason being that it takes no account of the actual message that the biblical Jesus presented. If he had said go out and preach a doctrine of intolerance, then you might have a point, but I'm sorry - I just dont read it that way."

    Well, what you and some others seem to miss completely or don't want to recognize is that when you delaclare to have the only true religion in the world, it automatically becomes a doctrine of intolerance! This is quite simple if you just give it a little thought.

    If you think that Christendom ins't the only true religion then please tell me. Because if it isn't, then what's the use of preaching and converting people, when they are served well with
    whatever religion they alrady got?

    Norm

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit