The Global Flood

by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Norm

  Hi there a christian

  You said:
  
  "My belief that the Creator of our universe inspired the writing of the Bible is certainly
  not based on such a foolish argument. All believers I know have a faith that is built on
  what they consider to be strong evidence. 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. Others have become convinced of
  that fact as a result of personal "miraculous experiences." Others' faith has been
  validated as a result of what they see as answered prayers or as God working in their lives.
  In any case, the faith of most Christians has resulted from what they see as strong evidence,
  not from circular arguments. Now, most likely if they were to discuss that "evidence" with you,
  you would not find it as convincing as they have. But I believe God gave each of them all the
  help they needed to firmly establish their faith in Him. He gave me what I needed.
  And I needed a lot. I hope someday He will give you all the evidence you need to put
  your faith in Him. But I don't believe the evidence God gives to most of us is "recyclable."
  For every child whom God adopts He adopts personally. That being the case, I doubt you will
  ever find all the evidence you need to put your faith in the God of the Bible on an
  Internet discussion board. However, maybe some here will plant some seeds in your heart
  and mind which God will later cause to grow."

  Well, I don't know what argument you base your faith in God having inspired the writing of
  the bible on, so I can't know if they appear sound. I do know however that if God actually is
  behind the shoddy, confusing and incoherent nonsense the Bible consist of, he must indeed be
  a very serious case of mental illness. We actually have the Bible which is a collection of books
  assembled by the Catholich Church a few hundred years after Jesus death. We also have a rather
  large collection of books that didn't make it into what became the Bible.But according to your
  line of reasoning God must have been behind the classification work then.Looking at those books
  that didn't "make it" some of them seem a bit more far fetched then the Bible, some less so.
  But they all have in common that they consist of the same incredible superstitious nonsense.

  Otherwise you seem to indicate that you will be unable to convince me or any other of you claims
  that the Bible is the inspired word of God. But yet you do make that claim in this discussuion forum
  and when you do that it is hardly a surprise that people want to know what you base that
  extraordinary claim upon, but after some discussion you now seem to tell us that you simply are unable
  to do that. If that's the case and that is actually what you say, you can hardly blame us for not
  accepting your claim simply because you say so. Indeed you make more, in my opninon quite strange
  claims above. It seems to indicate that it is God himself who approach us individually and "help" us
  gain faith, and moreover that these are so personal that they arent "recyclable" as you put it.

  Well, such an idea certainly relieves you and all Christians of the daunting task of convincing
  us non-believers of your extraordinary claim. And at the same time it makes this whole discussion
  pretty hopeless and uneccesary.

  As for finding "evidence" on an internet board, I strongly disagree with you, I have found lot's
  of evidence on such boards, as have millions of other people.thousands of JW's are now ex-JW's
  because of evidence they found on the Internet.

  Then you said:
  
  "The only "critical thinking" I have abandoned is the kind which is all too commonly
  displayed on this board. That is the kind of "critical thinking" which criticizes
  virtually every thought expressed by someone who expresses a belief in the God of the Bible."

  Indeed, but the problem is that this is exactly what critical thinking is. To be sceptical
  and critical of extraordinary claims.You do indeed make extraordinary claims, and when you are unable
  to tell us why we should accept them, you now indicate that you can't and that we just have to
  accept them just because you say so. What you actually say above is that you have abandoned
  critical thinking and that we must do the same in order to "believe", and that you actually
  resent having to explain or produce proof for your extraordinary claims. Well, you see
  this is not how it works in the real world.

  Norm
• 

  Satanus

  I don't believe the evidence God gives to most of us is "recyclable."

  That is an interesting saying. It may indeed be true. It is unfortunate that most christians don't know/understand/believe this. It would shut up most of them, making their religion a private thing between them and their god, while leaving everyone else to their own private interaction w their god or lack of it.

  S
• 

  LittleToe

  I take it that we're no longer talking about the Flood

  It continues to interest me how people set up straw men to knock down.
  Their version of Christianity can be dismantled, therefore all Christianity must be the work of ignorance or dishonesty (there's currently another thread commenting on this).

  Satanus:

  Ps, it seems to me that the christian message, by it's nature, is insulting to nonchristians. It is that faithless nonchristians are sinners/condemned.

  I don't buy that. I do concede that some Christians come across that way, but that ISN'T the message, IMHO.

  The christian is, by the grace of god, saved from that because of his/her faith.

  That's an interesting way of putting it, and I don't know if I can accept that, as it comes across as a "work". How about "Salvation is a gracious free gift, that is accepted by faith". In that way it differs from most other spiritual paths, in that you receive something free (which surely can't give you any personal cause for elevation).

  Who would not infer from this that the christian therefore assumes a better/superior grade than nonbelievers? I know there are christians who are exceptions to this, as there are an infinite number of christian belief variations.

  Again, it may be an inference, or an assumption, but is that truly the core tenet?
• 

  Pole

  A Christian,
  
  
  I think the misunderstanding on this thread arises from the fact that you haven't demonstrated to have a consistent methodology which would allow you to draw coherent and scientifically valid conclusions in the areas of disagreement.
  
  
  Implicitly or explicitly, all serious scientific reasoning is based on some methodology. It usually involves deduction, induction, the semiotics of a specialised scientific langauge, or even something as fancy as phenomenology.
  
  
  Problems start when you mix up the generally recognized methods of drawing scientific conclusions with the methods of religious exegesis. In fact, I think that's why people who care to have an honestly framed methodology got slightly emotional about your reasoning. You dissappointed themby raising unfulfilled expectations! :)
  
  
  The fact that you accept the evolution of hominids doesn't make the Adam and Eve story any more scientific. You still have to make your Adam and Eve methodology explicit.
  
  
  There's no way you can trade hominids for Eden with people who care about being intelectually honest along the lines of scientific methodologies. Otherwise we're playing some mutual adoration society game. :)
  
  
  Peace be with you.
  
  
  Pole
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  To simplify what pole said you argue that your belief is not remotely supernatural and because it is not supernatural then it must be true, and supernatural. Either that or pole went over my head.
• 

  Norm

  Hi Satanus

  The Christian religion is in its very core a force for division and conflict.
  That is its very nature. How so? You might ask. Let me elaborate.
  Jesus did tell his followers to go out and spread the "gospel" Chrsitians has, as
  we all know done that ever since.

  It is pretty obvious that when someone comes to you and tell you that you need to covert
  from whatever religion or not you happen to belong to at the moment, it is of course implied
  that your present faith is inferior to the Christian religion. Because in order to get approved
  by the only God in the universe which is the Christian one, you must convert. Only then will you
  have hope of eternal existence. History gives us many excellent examples of how harmful such
  activity has been.

  Belonging to the only "true" religion in the world also tend to bring with it a sense of being
  superior, and above people belonging to inferior "heathen" religions, not to speak of non-believers.
  With such attitudes followsarrogance and discrimination. Some countries actually outlaw missionary
  activities and proselytizing and punish conversion with death.
  That's of course quite deplorable from a democrativc and human right point of view, but it is real.
  In some cases Christian organizations seem to have the attitude
  that they can ignore such legislation in these countries and do as they want, thus bringing people
  into very dangerous situations.

  As long as Christendom has this very agressive and discriminatory nature built into it's very core,
  it will continue to be an instrument for hate, conflict, agression and discrimination.
  So it doesn't help that Christians as individuals appear to be nice, decent and tolerant,
  as long as their religion in fact isn't. By it's claim to be the only true religion, arrogance,
  intolerance and discrimination against all non Christians are simply an integrated part of
  the religion itself. Such an extreme attitude came with the ideology of Monotheism and can
  actually be called a kind of antireligion.

  Norm
• 

  Pole

  To simplify what pole said you argue that your belief is not remotely supernatural and because it is not supernatural then it must be true, and supernatural.

  Darn it XQ, and I was trying to sound so smart!

  Either that or pole went over my head.

  Well, at least you didn't get hit. Pole
• 

  Satanus

  LT

  it seems to me that the christian message, by it's nature, is insulting to nonchristians. It is that faithless nonchristians are sinners/condemned.

  I don't buy that. I do concede that some Christians come across that way, but that ISN'T the message, IMHO.

  If it is not the message, then, in your opinion, do nonbelievers still have to stand before the christian god at some point and be forced to make a decision and to face condemnation if they refuse to submit at that point? Or some variation of that.

  S
• 

  Narkissos

  I was getting over the last posts too quickly and I misread Norm's comment "By it's claim to be the only true religion, arrogance, intolerance and discrimination against all non Christians are simply an integrated part of the religion itself." At first my eyes caught only the last part of the sentence: "all non Christians are simply an integrated part of the religion itself".

  Even though that is not what Norm intended to say, I think this unwitting phrase points out to the central problem: any belief system has to integrate the unbelievers. Whether this is done in an exclusive and judgemental way (the unbelievers are wrong and rightly condemned) or in an inclusive and compassionate way (the unbelievers are wrong but they will be saved nonetheless -- which is the reading of Paul I suggested earlier in this thread, and to which many mainstream Protestants after Karl Barth or Catholics after Karl Rahner would agree), the common conclusion is that "the unbelievers are wrong". And it is potentially offensive or at least condescending.

  Now it is impossible to escape this conclusion when you really believe in a consistent worldview. Even consistent atheists would infer that believers are wrong, which boils down to the same structure of thought. The only way to escape it is admitting that your religion or philosophy, whatever it is, is not an objective truth, only one way among many to understand yourself subjectively and provisionally in a truly open -- i.e. unknowable -- reality. This is relativism, which may be found among liberal believers and (in the deepest sense of the word) agnostics.
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Norm wrote:

  By it's claim to be the only true religion, arrogance,
  intolerance and discrimination against all non Christians are simply an integrated part of
  the religion itself. Such an extreme attitude came with the ideology of Monotheism and can
  actually be called a kind of antireligion.

  This is one of the most silliest and non-sensical things I have read in a long time.

  To throw everyone together and claim Christians are some big bad bogeyman is childish. It is not balanced and not the truth. As soon as someone starts talking in an "us verses them"manner and making blanket statements about large groups of people they reveal their true intent. Which is not to speak the truth but rather to manipulate. Very sad indeed.

  Sabrina