Noah's Ark?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
As you already know, I don't share your beliefs of the christian god, so of course I dismiss everything religious that your christ are telling. We don't even know what he was telling, because his words are written down at least 60 years after his death by old and faulty men. And that's my beliefs. And you already knew that.

The sand castle you call the ...[text shortened]... saurs never lived in the same era as humans. For short, they have a sound and healthy faith.

don't you get tired?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Posted by Galvestone in another thread as evidence for the flood. Thought it would be more relevant in a thread about Noah's Ark.

I'm still at work but I'll answer the one about the flood because it's easy. Scientist say that the water we have on earth today including underground, ice caps and in the atmosphere is still the same amount that has always ...[text shortened]... the amount of water is on this planet and more then enough for God to use to flood it.

This is what got me started




Manny

So what if they (who ever they are) found Noah's Ark would that change anyones mind? At least in terms of some type of flood occurred? I agree the story sounds brutal on a certain level.




Manny

Originally posted by menace71
So what if they (who ever they are) found Noah's Ark would that change anyones mind? At least in terms of some type of flood occurred? I agree the story sounds brutal on a certain level.




Manny

assuming it is proven that it is indeed noah's ark, it will prove someone named noah built a bigass boat. they would still have to prove the flood happened, that it was world wide, how long it lasted, whether indeed noah was the only one surviving, if everyone died, how did the people in america came to be, what happened to the kangaroos to only exist in australia and more.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
As you already know, I don't share your beliefs of the christian god, so of course I dismiss everything religious that your christ are telling. We don't even know what he was telling, because his words are written down at least 60 years after his death by old and faulty men. And that's my beliefs. And you already knew that.

The sand castle you call the ...[text shortened]... saurs never lived in the same era as humans. For short, they have a sound and healthy faith.

the question was directed to you, in an objective way, with a view to establishing a precedent, that those who dismiss the teachings of Christ cannot in any sense of the word be termed Christians , can they? for a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ and Christ clearly taught, whether you accept it or not, that the flood was a literal account. As did Paul, as did Peter. You people cannot evade this, and it was with this thought in mind that i sought to establish this first and foremost, before entering into a discussion with regard to the other avenues of evidence.

It mattered naught Fabian whether you are a Christian or not, that was not the point, it was hoped that you might forward an objective evaluation based on what is written in the Bible and held in esteem by those who are rightly to be called Christians. Those other persons who have supplanted the teaching of Christ with another, are not Christians, they are something else, as the logic of this line of reasoning has clearly shown. Either they accept the flood as a literal account or they have deviated from what Christ taught, its really that simple.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the question was directed to you, in an objective way, with a view to establishing a precedent, that those who dismiss the teachings of Christ cannot in any sense of the word be termed Christians , can they? for a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ and Christ clearly taught, whether you accept it or not, that the flood was a litera ...[text shortened]... lood as a literal account or they have deviated from what Christ taught, its really that simple.

I don't agree. If Christ said something like "Dinosaurs lived together with humans" then he was plain wrong. There are christians who say this is important, and if Jesus didn't say that, he surely would have said that.

What Jesus said was according to the scientific knowledge at that time, more than that he didn't know anything about. If science know more than Jesus, and contradicts Jesus, then of course, that part christians should avoid to believe in. When StPaul and StPeter quoted Jesus, they are of course also wrong.

I don't always believe in my teachers. I have a mind of my own, and am able to think for myself. What christians should listen to is the essentials of the Jesus teachings. Dinosaurs living together with humans is not among these essentials.

If you say "Creation is a part of my religion" then I cannot mind. If you say "Science backs me up in this" then you're wrong, religion or not. If you furthermore say that "Evolution is not science" then you either don't know science or don't know evolution, and this has nothing to do with your right to excercize your religion.

Science doesn't support any global flooding during the history of man, therefore the story of Noah should be read symbolically or as a nice tale of what a brutal and evil supreme being was doing. A good story to be told at the camp fire to amuse an audience and not to be interpreted literary.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Posted by Galvestone in another thread as evidence for the flood. Thought it would be more relevant in a thread about Noah's Ark.

I'm still at work but I'll answer the one about the flood because it's easy. Scientist say that the water we have on earth today including underground, ice caps and in the atmosphere is still the same amount that has always ...[text shortened]... the amount of water is on this planet and more then enough for God to use to flood it.

Thanks...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't agree. If Christ said something like "Dinosaurs lived together with humans" then he was plain wrong. There are christians who say this is important, and if Jesus didn't say that, he surely would have said that.

What Jesus said was according to the scientific knowledge at that time, more than that he didn't know anything about. If science know m ...[text shortened]... be told at the camp fire to amuse an audience and not to be interpreted literary.

jesus had about 3 or so years to teach them murdering barbarian bastards about love and compassion. i think he didn't need to waste a year explaining evolution to them or going over quantum physics with them. so i don't care what jesus said about adam and eve or noah or whatever. even assuming his teachings were recorded correctly (which is doubtful since the gospels differ from each other)

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Also the earth was no doubt flatter then after the flood. That's why they are able to find ocean life fossils on Mt. Everest as well as other high mountains around the world. They were once at or below the sea level at that time.

So your saying there is no such thing as plate-tectonics? The creationist account gives the date for the flood as ar ...[text shortened]... ng the Himalayan mountian range has grown to it's impressive height only in the last 5,000yrs?[/b]

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm hoping to have many questions I have on that stuff myself answered somehow someday as I don't have the answers.
But if you can only imagine the tremendous forces that were happening to the surface of the earth when that amount of weight and turbulance was going on when the flood was happening.
I grew up on the Texas coast and have been thru many hurricanes and have seen water do unbelieveable things to the natural surface of the earth much less manmade buildings and roads, and this was a tiny fraction of what the flood could have done.
So if the right cataclysmic affects were applied, in my little mind of understanding, why couldn't the crushing pressures have pushed up the mountain ranges?
Do you remember how long Noah was in the ark? Alot could have been happening to the surface of the earth underneath him during that time.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
jesus had about 3 or so years to teach them murdering barbarian bastards about love and compassion. i think he didn't need to waste a year explaining evolution to them or going over quantum physics with them. so i don't care what jesus said about adam and eve or noah or whatever. even assuming his teachings were recorded correctly (which is doubtful since the gospels differ from each other)

I agree with you perfectly.

What Jesus said in total is not important. "Mary, can you bring the toilet paper to me, please!" Oh, is this something to be interpretated spiritually? No, of course not.

What is important is his gospel of love and peace ( and rock'n'roll too? ). This message is still there in the gospels. The people who actually wrote the gospels didn't changed that. They change an awful lot of other things, but the gospel of love shines through.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It mattered naught Fabian whether you are a Christian or not, that was not the point, it was hoped that you might forward an objective evaluation based on what is written in the Bible and held in esteem by those who are rightly to be called Christians. Those other persons who have supplanted the teaching of Christ with another, are not Christians, t ...[text shortened]... lood as a literal account or they have deviated from what Christ taught, its really that simple.

Jesus frequently talked in parables. When he said "there was a man who built his house upon the sand" do you take that as proof that such a man existed? If Jesus had said "when father Christmas calls the elves they come, you also should come when called" would you take it as a directive from God that father Christmas exists?
The passages you quote do not prove that Jesus believed Noah existed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Jesus frequently talked in parables. When he said "there was a man who built his house upon the sand" do you take that as proof that such a man existed? If Jesus had said "when father Christmas calls the elves they come, you also should come when called" would you take it as a directive from God that father Christmas exists?
The passages you quote do not prove that Jesus believed Noah existed.

i am glad he didn't say the earth was flat, or there would be still fundamentalists who would think nasa is run by the devil

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't agree. If Christ said something like "Dinosaurs lived together with humans" then he was plain wrong. There are christians who say this is important, and if Jesus didn't say that, he surely would have said that.

What Jesus said was according to the scientific knowledge at that time, more than that he didn't know anything about. If science know m ...[text shortened]... e told at the camp fire to amuse an audience and not to be interpreted literary.

this has as yet nothing to do with what Christ did not teach, nor what is accepted as contemporary science but what is actually recorded in the Bible which forms the basis of the Christians faith, for Christ's teachings are recorded nowhere else. That Christ taught that the account was literal, you have as yet provided no proof to the contrary, these references that you gave do not address what is recorded, but seek to establish a basis for rejecting what is actually recorded, therefore, the statement stands, Christ taught that the flood was a literal happening, and until you can provide a basis for anything contrary i will continue to assert that those who do not accept it have deviated from what Christ taught, good luck with trying to refute it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Jesus frequently talked in parables. When he said "there was a man who built his house upon the sand" do you take that as proof that such a man existed? If Jesus had said "when father Christmas calls the elves they come, you also should come when called" would you take it as a directive from God that father Christmas exists?
The passages you quote do not prove that Jesus believed Noah existed.

what are you talking about? are you suggesting that Christ was using the Noah account as a parable? get real! not only did Christ teach it, so did Paul and so did Peter, were they also speaking in parables? i knew someone would try this line of reasoning rather than facing the truth, and hey Whitey truth is what we are interested in, isn't it! therefore if it was a parable, you shall explain why Christ chose to use a parable to explain a parable!, if you cannot or will not, then your words are just hollow sounds and the chariot wheels of your post, as FMF is want to say, have fallen off already. The statement stands, Christ taught that the flood was a literal account.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I agree with you perfectly.

What Jesus said in total is not important. "Mary, can you bring the toilet paper to me, please!" Oh, is this something to be interpretated spiritually? No, of course not.

What is important is his gospel of love and peace ( and rock'n'roll too? ). This message is still there in the gospels. The people who actually wrote t ...[text shortened]... nged that. They change an awful lot of other things, but the gospel of love shines through.

'what Jesus taught in total is not important',????? why thank you for establishing what those who are plastic Christians have been saying for years, yes, 'we shall dismiss the teachings of Christ and establish our own', thankyou Fabian, i could not have wished for better!