Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

[Mr Laurier]

Then they aren't fundamentalists.

Then I guess the present crop of TV evangelist fundamentalists, aren't fundamentalists.

 

[trophy33]

I also believed in Jesus. You left that part out.

But I do not know what impact this belief had in you, if it gave you joy, peace, love, if Jesus helped you to get through your hard times... it seems that not. Or else why would you leave the faith. Now you think He is not even real.

 

[Mr Laurier]

But I do not know what impact this belief had in you, if it gave you joy, peace, love, if Jesus helped you to get through your hard times... it seems that not. Or else why would you leave the faith. Now you think He is not even real.

Religion is a useful tool for survival. The religion that was taught to me, was Christianity. But it could just as well have been Islam or Hinduism. The result would be the same. Believing that a god was going to rescue me, kept me alive through a childhood of terror and trauma. As a child I was only aware of Christianity. It was the religion I was raised in. Jesus was the straw I clutched in desperation. And I survived.
But then I grew up.
I met non-Christians.
I learned that what I had been taught about non-Christians, was wrong.
And I learned that what I had been taught about other religions, was also wrong.
After that, I could no longer be a christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you believe in Eternal Security (once saved, always saved)?

That is definitely a failed version of Christianity. Many of the "worst" Christians are those that have that belief. They appear to use it to excuse their bad behavior. When it comes to Christians acting as Christians I have seen the best and most Christian behavior (which is following the teachings of Jesus) from those that are unsure of their status as far as being "saved" goes. In other words, if you claim to be a Christian and believe that you are saved the odds are very good by biblical standards that you are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I guess the present crop of TV evangelist fundamentalists, aren't fundamentalists.

Christians quite often employ the No True Scotsman Fallacy when it comes to their beliefs. Oddly those are often the same Christians that will often point out that Christianity is the world's largest religion to bolster their beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is definitely a failed version of Christianity. Many of the "worst" Christians are those that have that belief.

God knew it before He instituted it, so He must know something about it you're overlooking.

Just because a particular doctrine is abused, doesn't make it a "failed version of Christianity."

And I have to ask:

Do they abuse it in spite of the Bible, or with respect to It, in your eyes?

I say in spite of It.

 

[trophy33]

Religion is a useful tool for survival. The religion that was taught to me, was Christianity. But it could just as well have been Islam or Hinduism. The result would be the same. Believing that a god was going to rescue me, kept me alive through a childhood of terror and trauma. As a child I was only aware of Christianity. It was the religion I was raised in. Jesus was the straw I clutched in desperation. And I survived.
But then I grew up.
I met non-Christians.
I learned that what I had been taught about non-Christians, was wrong.
And I learned that what I had been taught about other religions, was also wrong.
After that, I could no longer be a christian.

I understand.

Bible says that we must fight to keep our faith. That indicates we can lose it.

 

[Paul4JC]

Religion is a useful tool for survival. The religion that was taught to me, was Christianity. But it could just as well have been Islam or Hinduism. The result would be the same. Believing that a god was going to rescue me, kept me alive through a childhood of terror and trauma. As a child I was only aware of Christianity. It was the religion I was raised in. Jesus was the straw I clutched in desperation. And I survived.
But then I grew up.
I met non-Christians.
I learned that what I had been taught about non-Christians, was wrong.
And I learned that what I had been taught about other religions, was also wrong.
After that, I could no longer be a christian.

Quite a story. Thanks for sharing. Sorry for your bad experiences. Since I met Christ when I was 19 to this day I don't like to call myself a Christian, even I despise it. (Here you have to use some label so I did cause there were no other options) Yet I don't embrace any such labels, nor do they impress me. I don't follow Christianity or a church, I follow Christ. I've studied many religions over the years too. There is some truth everywhere, even in Atheism. I have faith in Christ and experience him every day and everything else is secondary and even meaningless. I'd throw it away in a heartbeat if it wasn't real, but it is. He is. I'd recommend you go to the Gospel of John and read it again. God bless.

 

[Lion IRC]

You said you would only use what the bible actually says. Your arguments fail as they require you to add to what is there.

No. That's my very point!

I contend that bible if skeptics limit themselves to what the text specially (literally) states, then we wouldn't be arguing over stuff like @Mr Laurier 's speculations about Noah embarking on an "ocean-going" cruise around the world and needing boiler plate steel in case of icebergs. There's nothing in the text to suggest that the Ark did anything other than float. Neither does the text speak of icebergs or starting out in Asia and finishing up in the Americas.

The text doesn't state that all mountain tops were all submerged to the exact same depth at the exact same moment and that they ALL became visible (to Noah) at the same moment. So I shouldn't have to defend an accusation that that's what occurred. BUT....a tidal swell, or tsunami could yield a temporary covering of mountain tops at one point on the globe and then others on the opposite side of the globe such that all mountains WERE covered - just not simultaneously. The text doesn't require a defense of simultaneous mountaintop coverage.

And this is not word games or semantic gymnastics. Nor is it me playing the miracle card.

 

[Lion IRC]

Even if it was as seaworthy as possible, wooden vessels of that size are incredibly dangerous on open water.

Agreed.
Noah was anxious to get off the Ark as quickly as possible. Looking for dry land.

"After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven. It kept flying back and forth until the waters had dried up from the earth"

Perhaps the Ark was taking on water or maybe even starting to become structurally unstable. BUT....such reasonable speculations still don't invalidate or falsify what actually IS in the text.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. That's my very point!

I contend that bible if skeptics limit themselves to what the text specially (literally) states, then we wouldn't be arguing over stuff like @Mr Laurier 's speculations about Noah embarking on an "ocean-going" cruise around the world and needing boiler plate steel in case of icebergs. There's nothing in the text to suggest that the Ark did anything other than float. Neither does the text speak of icebergs or starting out in Asia and finishing up in the Americas.

The text doesn't state that all mountain tops were all submerged to the exact same depth at the exact same moment and that they ALL became visible (to Noah) at the same moment. So I shouldn't have to defend an accusation that that's what occurred. BUT....a tidal swell, or tsunami could yield a temporary covering of mountain tops at one point on the globe and then others on the opposite side of the globe such that all mountains WERE covered - just not simultaneously. The text doesn't require a defense of simultaneous mountaintop coverage.

And this is not word games or semantic gymnastics. Nor is it me playing the miracle card.

If it doesn't say it was all submerged at the same time and to the same depth, maybe it does say how long it was submerged. If only we got to the text that might show that...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No. That's my very point!

I contend that bible if skeptics limit themselves to what the text specially (literally) states, then we wouldn't be arguing over stuff like @Mr Laurier 's speculations about Noah embarking on an "ocean-going" cruise around the world and needing boiler plate steel in case of icebergs. There's nothing in the text to suggest that the Ark did anything other than float. Neither does the text speak of icebergs or starting out in Asia and finishing up in the Americas.

The text doesn't state that all mountain tops were all submerged to the exact same depth at the exact same moment and that they ALL became visible (to Noah) at the same moment. So I shouldn't have to defend an accusation that that's what occurred. BUT....a tidal swell, or tsunami could yield a temporary covering of mountain tops at one point on the globe and then others on the opposite side of the globe such that all mountains WERE covered - just not simultaneously. The text doesn't require a defense of simultaneous mountaintop coverage.

And this is not word games or semantic gymnastics. Nor is it me playing the miracle card.

I already demonstrated how you have to ignore context to make those claims. Your arguments are not consistent with the biblical text.

 

[Speedwell]

I already demonstrated how you have to ignore context to make those claims. Your arguments are not consistent with the biblical text.

It doesn't matter. The whole business is bootless. Lion is making a "could have happened" argument, which is only effective against "could not have happened." But the scientific position is "did not happen." Speculations about how the Bible story could be true are useless.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I understand.

Bible says that we must fight to keep our faith. That indicates we can lose it.

Thankyou.
I find that my basic core character has not changed since my de-conversion.
Its almost as though I was already a good person. And my religious beliefs had nothing to do with it.

 

[Mr Laurier]

No. That's my very point!

I contend that bible if skeptics limit themselves to what the text specially (literally) states, then we wouldn't be arguing over stuff like @Mr Laurier 's speculations about Noah embarking on an "ocean-going" cruise around the world and needing boiler plate steel in case of icebergs. There's nothing in the text to suggest that the Ark did anything other than float. Neither does the text speak of icebergs or starting out in Asia and finishing up in the Americas.

The text doesn't state that all mountain tops were all submerged to the exact same depth at the exact same moment and that they ALL became visible (to Noah) at the same moment. So I shouldn't have to defend an accusation that that's what occurred. BUT....a tidal swell, or tsunami could yield a temporary covering of mountain tops at one point on the globe and then others on the opposite side of the globe such that all mountains WERE covered - just not simultaneously. The text doesn't require a defense of simultaneous mountaintop coverage.

And this is not word games or semantic gymnastics. Nor is it me playing the miracle card.

Given my lack of such speculations....
And given my failure to bring up either boiler plate, or icebergs...

 

[inquiring mind]

It doesn't matter. The whole business is bootless. Lion is making a "could have happened" argument, which is only effective against "could not have happened." But the scientific position is "did not happen." Speculations about how the Bible story could be true are useless.

Are there absolutely and unequivocally ‘no’ speculations in the ‘did not happen’ position?

 

[Bradskii]

I think the fox hole quote pertains to being subjected to longer periods of the stress you were under for a brief moment. But, my expertise is in physics, so...

You're right. But perhaps if you have to time to rationalise the situation one might think 'Hey, I'm an atheist. It's nonsensical to ask for divine help!'. Whereas if you only have a few seconds, the pressure might automatically reveal your true doubts.

 

[inquiring mind]

You're right. But perhaps if you have to time to rationalise the situation one might think 'Hey, I'm an atheist. It's nonsensical to ask for divine help!'. Whereas if you only have a few seconds, the pressure might automatically reveal your true doubts.

Good point.

 

[Speedwell]

Are there absolutely and unequivocally ‘no’ speculations in the ‘did not happen’ position?

No speculations necessary when there is evidence that it did not happen (that something else happened)--which has been the case for the past 200 years. But even so, from the standpoint of logic "could have happened" is not an argument against "did not happen" even if "did not happen" is wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

No speculations necessary when there is evidence that it did not happen (that something else happened)--which has been the case for the past 200 years. But even so, from the standpoint of logic "could have happened" is not an argument against "did not happen" even if "did not happen" is wrong.

What? And 200 years you say? Oh well, how’d I miss that… guess it’s back to the drawing board, or back to discussing Schrodinger’s Cat with those other guys.