1. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Apr '07
    Moves
    756
    14 May '07 11:05
    What are people's views on the WW Flood?

    If you believe in God then do you think it happened?

    If not.. then how are you suppose to face the Bible and the truths it holds? If you consider it's used like the way Jesus talked a lot then how are you to interpret what is and is not truth in what you read?
  2. Joined
    03 Oct '05
    Moves
    86698
    14 May '07 11:29
    It must have been a pretty big ship.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 May '07 11:42
    Originally posted by Gascraft
    What are people's views on the WW Flood?

    If you believe in God then do you think it happened?

    If not.. then how are you suppose to face the Bible and the truths it holds? If you consider it's used like the way Jesus talked a lot then how are you to interpret what is and is not truth in what you read?
    Anyone who has not intentionally blinded themselves to obvious facts, knows that there are errors in the Bible and it cant possibly be true word for word. Just by picking up two different translations and showing that some sentences are translated differently you can show that a given translation must necessarily contain errors. So unless you are sure that what you have is the original version and that you understand the words as they were meant when written then you will always have a problem telling what is correct.
    In fact as most Christians interpret much of the Bible in non-literal sense finding deeper meaning than the literal words, it is really more a problem of how you interpret what you read than whether what you read is correct.
    I am an atheist so I am just telling you what I have learnt from the Christians I know and they have widely different views on what should be interpreted as fact and what shouldn't and even those who claim to interpret every word as fact have different views on what each word actually means.
    As for Noahs ark, the largest denominations constituting more than half of Christians officially believe it to be non-literal. I don't know about the individual members though.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Apr '07
    Moves
    756
    14 May '07 11:49
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    I am an atheist so I am just telling you what I have learnt from the Christians I know and they have widely different views.
    This is what I'm interested in. How, as an individual they approach these situations. More along the lines of how they find truth in the Bible.

    Yes, yes.. there isnt enough water.. BUT!!! Say no more. 🙂.,
  5. Standard memberyo its me
    watch the acid...
    dosen't get you!!
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    58559
    14 May '07 12:03
    One could argue over the finer points, but you might miss the point, "Love one another, as you love yourself." Once you've got that sorted (which takes a life time) then 'tis time to wonder if there was enough water.
    😏
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Apr '07
    Moves
    756
    14 May '07 12:072 edits
    So if you are in Iraq watching people killed and made homeless around you, it's alright to show Americans that same love by joining Al-Q?

    Opps that isnt right, but the fact remains it's proportional. It isnt a situation about love, but a war situation brought about by Bush. The Bible should then have a different meaning, while the meanings from an American's view would be a funny joke like they are!
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 May '07 12:11
    Originally posted by Gascraft
    This is what I'm interested in. How, as an individual they approach these situations. More along the lines of how they find truth in the Bible.
    Many of the Christians I know concentrate mostly on the New Testament and even then, would take some bits like Revelations with a pinch of salt.
    The vast majority of Christians probably haven't read the whole Bible nor made up their minds about which bits are fact and which aren't and more have a tendency to let others (church leaders etc) assist them with interpretation etc. Many read the Bible and find 'meaning' and valuable lessons and proverbs etc but as with all proverbs, the lesson is only really understood if you know the answer already and all it does is put it in an elegant way or reminds you of something.
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    14 May '07 12:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Anyone who has not intentionally blinded themselves to obvious facts, knows that there are errors in the Bible and it cant possibly be true word for word. Just by picking up two different translations and showing that some sentences are translated differently you can show that a given translation must necessarily contain errors. So unless you are sure tha ...[text shortened]... ans officially believe it to be non-literal. I don't know about the individual members though.
    I have asked christians how they know, or how they determine, which parts of the bible are to be interpreted literally and which parts are not. As I have not received an answer yet, I can only assume that they do so subjectively, according to whatever current society finds fashionable. And presumably they reserve the right to alter that determination on a whim.

    Or perhaps its that whatever can be directly challenged by science is meant to be interpreted figuratively, and that which cannot yet be touched by science is to be taken literally. So over the ages, more and more of the bible is reluctantly cast into the figurative lot and less and less can plausibly be taken literally. Following this trend, it's quite plausible that the bible will eventually end up being nothing more than a christian version of Aesop's fables.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Apr '07
    Moves
    756
    14 May '07 12:24
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Many of the Christians I know concentrate mostly on the New Testament and even then, would take some bits like Revelations with a pinch of salt.
    The vast majority of Christians probably haven't read the whole Bible nor made up their minds about which bits are fact and which aren't and more have a tendency to let others (church leaders etc) assist them wi ...[text shortened]... the answer already and all it does is put it in an elegant way or reminds you of something.
    One more and then I'm off...

    Soooo the church leaders encourage these Christians(the body of Christ) in certain directions by taking away a personal relation with Jesus. It's through their leaders they find the bridge to Jesus who is the bridge to God. I'm sure they will all encourage feeding starving children in Africa because the Bush amin & neo-cons make it easier for them.. leaving no one to fight for the people in Iraq.

    I guess I've diverted again. So anyway, it seems most of the Christians you know look a lot towards intellect, which isnt wrong.. but love is what the Bible is about through the teachings of Jesus.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 May '07 12:35
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Or perhaps its that whatever can be directly challenged by science is meant to be interpreted figuratively, and that which cannot yet be touched by science is to be taken literally.
    That is one of the strangest things about Christians. The Bible quite clearly states that many of the events were miracles and thus should not be subject to the laws of science. Yet many Christians will go to great lengths to try and show that Christianity is compatible with science. Creationists for example, although when pushed will always use the Goddunit defense still seem to have a need to make it fit with science even if outright lies are necessary to achieve that.
    I have always thought that the best argument for creationism would be to say that God made the world x thousand years ago in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from a much older world.
  11. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    14 May '07 13:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have always thought that the best argument for creationism would be to say that God made the world x thousand years ago in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from a much older world.
    They do say that. They claim that god put those dinosaur bones there to make the world look older and thereby test our faith.

    So they try to have it both ways, or whichever way they seem to think will work best for them at the moment. They try to claim a scientific backing for their rubbish, and when their nonsense is exposed they then try to undermine the trustworthiness of science. So they've got it covered on both ends. Science either backs them up, or failing that, science is not to be trusted.
  12. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    14 May '07 14:03
    Originally posted by rwingett
    They do say that. They claim that god put those dinosaur bones there to make the world look older and thereby test our faith.
    Gosse's Omphalos theory...
Back to Top