Originally posted by kirksey957I think so. All the wickedness was destroyed, even though its present again today. And also there is evidence on the earth that there was a flood adn that there was a God who caused it. The whole point is for people to see the Creator in nature.
Do you think anything good came out of the fall?
Originally posted by SwissGambit5) I dont believe in evolution. is that all the answer u got?
RHP auto-mod is killing me. I will not retype everything that was lost. To be brief:
4) Already covered in 3) - no room.
5) Sounds like you believe in evolution.
6) Already covered in 3) - no room.
Originally posted by thorvoI must admit that that is an answer that suprised me.
I think so. All the wickedness was destroyed, even though its present again today. And also there is evidence on the earth that there was a flood adn that there was a God who caused it. The whole point is for people to see the Creator in nature.
Originally posted by thorvo
It states that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit. Thats when satan tempted them to eat it. From then on man sinned, and pretty soon the sin got so bad God had to do something about it. God created something good, but when satan tempted eve, she ate and sinned, then adam ate and sinned. sin ruined the good that God made.
Yes, I know all this. You are answering how the Bible asserts sin came into the world. That's
not my question.
God created humankind, right? He created humankind with certain interests and drives. Some
people are more inclined to be compassionate than others, some are more inclined to be merciful
than others, some are more inclined to be charitable than others, and so forth.
God made people who were inclined to sin. But not only sin, but sin so severely as to become
wicked and depraved such that God had to wipe them all out, save eight.
Now, if God had no foreknowledge that this would happen, then we could hardly blame Him.
But He did have foreknowledge.
If God did not have almighty power such that He could alter the inclinations of humankind, then
we could hardly blame Him. But He did have that omnipotence.
So, the question is: given that God had the foreknowledge and power to create humankind
with a greater inclination to goodness, why would He create beings who were so wicked as
required complete extermination?
Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvo
3) Who says a big ship cant stay afloat? the titanic was bigger I believe. If a ship is built right, largeness doesnt matter. And assuming that it simply could not have been structurally sound is bias. How could they assume that? Thats a very weak argument.good boats and ships can be made with wood and can be constructed well and work well. the guy of the site has no proof to say the structure wasnt sound enough. Steel doesnt have to be in a boat. there are wooden canoes that float just fine. I looked on the internet for the USS wyoming but i didnt find anything of it being wood, nor that it was so unstable. besides, just cause the wyoming boat didnt work right doesnt mean a thing. how wide was it? how high? how was its bottom?
It's not an assumption. Given the dimensions of the ark, we can calculate the amount of wood
required, the stresses that it would undergo, how much water it would displace (in order to
calculate buoyancy), how much it would weigh and so forth. Simply because a canoe floats
doesn't mean all wooden boats of any dimension can float.
Yes, good boats can be made completely out of wood, but there is a maximum size that such
boats can be before the pressures on the wood causes failures in the structure.
As for animals, there may be a lot of species today, but what about over 4000 years ago? many animals are crosses between other species, others may be different because of the habitat they live in. all those facts are to be taken in consideration.
How many species of animals do you think were on the ark? I mean, do you think that there
was only one 'bear-kind' and that it evolved into different species of bear afterwards (polar
bear, grizzly bear, &c)?
As far as fish, why couldnt they stay in the water? fish live in the water. duh.
I know you're a kid and you're just trying to learn, but when you say 'duh' you make it sound
like we're stupid. But, in fact, the situation here is that you are mistaken. Have you ever
tried to put a tropical, salt-water fish in a cool fresh-water tank? It dies, and fast. Most fish
(and other aquatic fauna) require a rather narrow range of salinity (salt level) and
temperature. There are even some fish that live in 'brackish' water, which is where fresh-water
rivers empty out into salt-water bodies; if these fish are placed in fresh or salt water, they die.
A world-wide flood would necessarily have to have a particular salinity and this salinity would
necessarily rule out huge numbers of fish.
Furthermore, why suddenly are you ignoring the writing of Genesis? Chapter 6:19-20 clearly
reads: 'Of all the living creatures you shall bring two into the ark, one male and one female,
that you may keep them alive with you. Of all the kinds of birds, of all the kinds of
beasts, and of all the kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you,
to stay alive.'
Chapter 7:2-3 tells a slightly different story (because it comes from a different proto-Jewish source):
'Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean
animals, one pair, a male and its mate; likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs,
a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you
will keep their issue alive over all the earth.'
So, are we to interpret 'all' as 'some?'
Now, I know what is going to happen. At some point, me, SwissGambit, DoctorScribbles,
TheSkipper or whoever is going to say something that makes you go, 'Gee whiz. This stuff
is sounding more and more improbable.' And you're going to go to your parents, or your
youth pastor, or your minister in church and say, 'All these guys brought up these really problematic
issues with the Bible story that I cherish and love.' And they are going to tell you that we're
evil, the voice of Satan, corrupters of youth, part of the left-ist conspiracy to wipe out religion
from the planet, anti-Christs or whatever. And they're going to say, 'Don't listen to them.
Listen to God's Word. Don't think about it. Just believe.'
And you're going to be faced with a choice. You can do what they say: Don't think, just believe.
Or you can think and examine your beliefs.
Personally, I believe in a living faith, one which is constantly subjected to scrutiny and examination.
I want to purge myself of all that is wrong about my faith and embrace all that is true about it.
I want skeptics and non-believers to look at what I say and shred it apart, because I can only
become a better person of faith by doing so.
You may not desire this. You may think that not challenging your faith is the best way to go.
You may wish to surround yourself with people who say, 'You're right. Jesus loves you. Just
keep repeating what the Bible says and don't think.' They are a comfortable crown, to be sure,
because all they do is reinforce your static beliefs.
If this is what you think, then you should ignore the so-called faculty (don't listen to what Kirksey
said about professors, he's just an itinerant preacher looking for a handout 😉 ). The people
listed in that group are all examiners, not reinforcers. I'm not trying to discourage you from
posting, but save you (and us) a long series of exchanges where we don't really understand
where each other is coming from.
If you want people to just tell you to keep believing the same thing you've always believed and
to never, ever change, ignore us and just post with the other people on this site who, as adults,
have a static, unyielding faith.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Personally, I believe in a living faith, one which is constantly subjected to scrutiny and examination. I want to purge myself of all that is wrong about my faith and embrace all that is true about it. I want skeptics and non-believers to look at what I say and shred it apart, because I can only become a better person of faith by doing so.
Originally posted by thorvo
[b]3) Who says a big ship cant stay afloat? the titanic was bigger I believe. If a ship is built right, largeness doesnt matter. And assuming that it simply could not have been structurally sound is bias. How could they assume that? Thats a very weak argument.good boats and ships can be made with wood and can be constructe s adults,
have a static, unyielding faith.
Nemesio
Well and honestly put.
Might that not also entail—if not progressive revelation (though I am not ruling that out here)—at least a progressive understanding of revelation? And by “revelation” I am including natural revelation (i.e., revelation in and through nature) as well. And, could not what is conventionally called written (or scriptural) revelation also be considered as developing in and through human consciousness and understanding itself, and therefore subject to continual re-evaluation and reinterpretation?
Perhaps a better way to say it: might not revelation (of both sorts) be considered as dynamic rather than static? Might not “God”—however one otherwise wants to understand what that word refers to—be considered as dynamic, rather than static? How might that notion affect the traditional view of God as being immutable?
Kashmir Shaivism, for instance—a strictly non-dualistic system that nevertheless employs theistic symbolism, and a “trinitarian” formula of Shiva-Shakti-Spanda—views Shiva as a thoroughly dynamic principle, and argues that that is one of the features that distinguishes it from the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta (another being the view that the phenomenal forms of maya are actual, and that illusion consists in viewing them wrongly as separate and separable from the ultimate ground; they charge the Vedantists with believing that the world of forms—maya—is actually just a delusion). In other words, the ground of being itself, as well as all manifest being, is dynamic.
I wonder what that view might have in kinship with a western process theology—whether theistic, non-dualistic, or panentheistic?
Originally posted by thorvoSuppose John is a person who likes fruit, but really, really likes bananas most of all. Suppose Mark comes up to John hiding a piece of fruit behind his back, and tells John that if he can guess what kind it is, he'll let John eat it. John, based on his desire to have it be a banana comes to believe that it is a banana, and guesses that it is so. John's belief is said to be supported by a pragmatic reason.
I dont understand some of the words you used. Could you please reword your question?
Mark plays a similar game with Matthew, who also happens to like fruit, bananas in particular. However this time, Mark quickly flashes his closed hands in front, and Matthew observes that the fruit does not extend beyond Mark's fist. Matthew, based on his knowledge of fruit sizes, comes to believe that it has to be smaller than a banana and guesses that it is a grape. Matthew's belief is said to be supported by an evidentiary reason.
If this game is played numerous times with numerous different pieces of fruit, which player do you suppose would go most hungry in the long run?
More generally, when attempting to determine truth in the face of uncertainty, do you suppose pragmatic or evidentiary reasons tend to be more reliable?
Originally posted by thorvo1) What caused the water to push up from the 'fountains of the deep'? What 'opened the floodgates of heaven'?
1) No its not basically Goddunit. You asked where the water came from. It came from the fountains of the deep, or in other words, it was underground water, deep under the soil, possibly even under the crust.
2) No they did. But you asked where all the water went. Because it was a global flood, you can imagine how big the currents were. As a result of the cur round, some plants live in the water, and other species besides fish can live in the water too.
2) Mountains are made by tectonic plates impacting. And you still have a water problem. Where was all this water stored before the flood? There isn't enough room under the crust for a volume of water that can flood the earth when moved OVER the crust. Have you looked at the size of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on a globe? There's no way something that large could be carved out in 40 days or less, unless the water current was huge. Problem is, that huge water current would smash the Ark to little wooden bits.
3) Your response only shows that you didn't read the Tobin article very carefully. A wooden boat isn't as durable as a steel one, and the USS Wyoming required pumping to get rid of the water. Steel/hydraulic pumps weren't available to Noah.
And yes, the size of the boat DOES matter. With a canoe, it is likely that it can be one single, solid piece of wood. With a large boat, you have to join several smaller bits of wood, or other material, together somehow. The overall weight increases the more material that is added.
"Fish live in the water, duh" - this is where I give up on you. Not all water is the same. Oceans have salt water. The flood water would have to be oceanic, since it carved out the oceans and became ocean water later, according to you. Not all fish are capable of living in salt water.
Sure, there's insects that live near water, but could they live without any land mass nearby for 40 years? In oceanic-like water? I doubt it. Here's your chance to educate me. Go for it.
Originally posted by thorvoand yet a couple of posts previously, you say....
5) I dont believe in evolution. is that all the answer u got?
As for animals, there may be a lot of species today, but what about over 4000 years ago? many animals are crosses between other species, others may be different because of the habitat they live in. all those facts are to be taken in consideration. Like the beetles, 300000 species, the differences between those beetles could well be affected by their habitat, mating, climate, etc.
So you accept that species change over time? Well that is evolution. And the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the only viable, consistant, backed-by-evidence process that has thus far been proposed to explain evolution. Your bit about climate, habitat, mating etc causing the changes is essentially the Theory of Evolution.
So not only do you believe in evolution itself, you also believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Except of course that you have the timescales all wrong: 4000 years is not nearly long enough for most of these changes.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesnice example. however it doesn't matter in the game of religion because john only gets the fruit and whether his guess was correct after he dies no matter what his guess is and how he made that guess. and after he dies he will either be dead and eaten by worms and he wouldn't care what his choice was or he would be either in hell or heaven(on over simplified result) so he would not care much how he made it.
Suppose John is a person who likes fruit, but really, really likes bananas most of all. Suppose Mark comes up to John hiding a piece of fruit behind his back, and tells John that if he can guess what kind it is, he'll let John eat it. John, based on his desire to have it be a banana comes to believe that it is a banana, and guesses that it is so. ...[text shortened]... ce of uncertainty, do you suppose pragmatic or evidentiary reasons tend to be more reliable?
Originally posted by Nemesioi think you cannot have a greater inclination towards good and maintain free will
Originally posted by thorvo
[b]
[...]
So, the question is: given that God had the foreknowledge and power to create humankind
with a greater inclination to goodness, why would He create beings who were so wicked as
required complete extermination?
Nemesio
i believe the big guy gave us free will first and all good and evil comes from our ability to choose. and that is why he proceeded with this experiment. maybe i am cynical but i believe him to be bored and so he created life unbound by his will to spice things up
if we admit the existence of angels as pure good creatures(except the black sheep of the family lucifer) then how much free will do you think they have? a person could do only good if they were programed only for certain tasks and forbidden to do others.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAre you saying that a choice is only a 'free will' choice if the options available are ether good or evil?
i think you cannot have a greater inclination towards good and maintain free will
i believe the big guy gave us free will first and all good and evil comes from our ability to choose. and that is why he proceeded with this experiment. maybe i am cynical but i believe him to be bored and so he created life unbound by his will to spice things up
if we a ...[text shortened]... son could do only good if they were programed only for certain tasks and forbidden to do others.
To what extent does knowledge of the evilness of a choice come into play? If you do not know which choice is the better one, is it still evil of you to chose the bad one?
Do you ever knowingly make the evil choice? Why?