My Integrity Challenge

[The Liturgist]

But for the record, you believe the Flood was real ... right?

Yes, although I believe it was regional.

But what if you were convinced scientifically that the Flood wasn't real?

Would you accept that twenty million dollars to go look anyway?

If there is a possibility the Ark exists it would be nice to find it, but I don’t think I could take the money in either case, because I am not qualified for such an expedition, I don’t think the Turks would allow it, and I think the Ark is either decomposed or inaccessible.

I really think its best to focus on returning Mount Ararat to the persecuted Christians of Armenia. The issue of recovering the Ark pales to insignificance. Also, excavating for the Ark might expose more Armenian stone crosses, which the Turks might destroy in the same manner the Azeris have been destroying them.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is a possibility the Ark exists it would be nice to find it,

Sounds like cognitive dissonance.

If one is convinced the Flood wasn't real, then entertaining a possibility would breed confusion, would it not?

And just for the record, I believe the Flood story is real, and I like to think that Noah dismantled the Ark to build his homestead after the Flood.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

If one is convinced the Flood wasn't real, then entertaining a possibility would breed confusion, would it not?

No, not at all, AV. That's why I asked of the money was contingent on actually finding anything. I absolutely, 100% don't believe that The Flood happened as depicted in the Bible. But, if someone wanted to give me a million dollars to go look I would do my due diligence to the best of my ability. I would not believe I would find anything, but I'd go about it as close to a science\research expedition as my own knowledge would allow. I'd give it the "ol' college try." If nothing else I'd get to see a part of the world I'd likely never have been able to otherwise.

That is something else though... there are plenty of bible believers and scholars who believe the Flood was regional. So, it's possible that one could find elements of the story, like the remanence of the ark, that wouldn't necessarily be evidence of flood as depicted in the bible. So, who gets to decide what any evidence found is actually evidence of?

 

[AV1611VET]

I absolutely, 100% don't believe that The Flood happened as depicted in the Bible. But, if someone wanted to give me a million dollars to go look I would do my due diligence to the best of my ability.

Where would you start?

In fact, where could you start?

Would you retrace steps that have been walked before?

Would you look in places that have been looked in before and declared FLOOD FREE?

Would you start in Japan? Guam? Antarctica?

However, that's all moot in my opinion.

If someone wanted to give you that money, he must have wanted to because you said you'd go look.

And there goes your integrity.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Since one poster here likes to bring up integrity a lot, I thought I would issue a challenge based on it.

Here's my challenge:

If you were offered one million dollars to find evidence of Noah's flood, would you:

A) Take it and go look somewhere?

B) Decline it on the basis that you are convinced scientifically that Noah's flood didn't occur?

C.) Neither because God will not allow us to find such evidence.

 

[dlamberth]

C.) Neither because God will not allow us to find such evidence.

Why would that be?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Why would that be?

It basically boils down to that kind of knowledge having a very high - if not absolute - certainty of forever damning all who come to know it.

There is a reason that God requires us to walk by faith in mortality - for that is what mitigates the effects of the Law upon us.

If we come to know God with a surety - meaning that we no longer live by faith - then there would be no justification for us if we were to ever decide to operate contrary to that knowledge.

Unless you are ready to obey every single commandment from God - never wavering - never once violating the Law or committing sin or succumbing to weakness - then you would have no excuse when God takes your accounting.

Any "slip" would cause the full effects of the Law to come upon you and you would be damned forever.

This is why the Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died for us - He took upon Himself the penalties of the Law so we would not have to - if we had faith in Him and repented of our sins.

This is why we are not required to know all things in order to be saved - but rely on the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is why there are many things that we will never come to know in this life - for that knowledge would defeat the purpose of mortality and damn us.

 

[The Liturgist]

And just for the record, I believe the Flood story is real, and I like to think that Noah dismantled the Ark to build his homestead after the Flood.

I believe the Flood story is real. I don’t know what happened to the Ark. However, I would be surprised if it is still intact. And you just outlined another scenario for what might have happened to it; if Noah dismantled it and used it to build his homestead (which would be quite a homestead given its dimensions I must say), that would make finding it nearly impossible, even if it survives buried underground in some manner, since it would lack its original shape and also presumably no longer be resting near the summit of Mount Ararat.

 

[The Liturgist]

It basically boils down to that kind of knowledge having a very high - if not absolute - certainty of forever damning all who come to know it.

There is a reason that God requires us to walk by faith in mortality - for that is what mitigates the effects of the Law upon us.

While this may be LDS doctrine, the experience of Orthodox Christians is one routinely reinforced by actual evidence of God’s existence and of the interaction of His uncreated grace with His creation.

This is because we believe in an incarnate God who created all things (John 1:1-14), including time, space and the universe, and who is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, impassible, eternal and immutable, distinct from creation but not outside of it.

Additionally we believe the three persons of the all-Holy consubstantial and life-giving Trinity are of one essence with the Father, from whom the Son is begotten before all ages, and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, and are coeternal, coequal, and united in a state of perfect love, and the Son furthermore is fully man and fully God, his humanity and divinity hypostatically united without change, confusion, separation or division.

Thus, while God in His essence is beyond human comprehension, we can perceive and interact with His uncreated energies, including the grace of the Holy Spirit, and we furthermore have many sacred relics which exhibit miraculous properties of which the Ark would simply be another example. Indeed the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church is in posession of the Ark of the Covenant. The relics of St. Nicholas of Myra are among several relics and icons which gush sacred myrhh. And the fragments of the True Cross are known for their ability to heal the sick; indeed the Cross was identified by being used to resurrect two recently deceased people when St. Helena conducted what was arguably the first archaeological survey in history, of Jerusalem, after her son Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity (which she had previously professed), enabling her to travel to the Hagiopolis and rebuild it, for it was still largely in ruins, having never been entirely rebuilt following the failed Bar Kochba revolt in 130 AD.

I don’t know if Mormons have any miraculous objects in their temples or not, but we do in ours (and additionally many of our relics were stolen by the Venetians and other Roman Catholic temples, or were in the possession of the Roman church before the Great Schism estranged them from us, so Orthodox pilgrims will visit Roman churches to venerate the many holy relics and icons in their possession; there are also a small number of holy relics, icons and important historical artifacts in Anglican, Lutheran and other Protestant churches).

 

[AV1611VET]

C.) Neither because God will not allow us to find such evidence.

Heretofore I agree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Heretofore I agree.

So it's 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation for you. No matter what happens, you can claim the supposed moral high ground on the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it's 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation for you. No matter what happens, you can claim the supposed moral high ground on the situation.

I don't understand your point.

You know where I stand on the Flood and its aftermath.

I speculate He cleaned it all up:

1. Siphoning the water off the earth and sending it to Neptune.
2. Having the water etch meandering rivers on their way to their respective siphoning points.
3. Sweeping up coccolithophores into piles of white cliffs and leaving them here.
4. Terraforming the earth back to its original pristine condition as per Genesis 1.

What's with the "moral high ground" bit?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't understand your point.

You know where I stand on the Flood and its aftermath.

I speculate He cleaned it all up:

1. Siphoning the water off the earth and sending it to Neptune.
2. Having the water etch meandering rivers on their way to their respective siphoning points.
3. Sweeping up coccolithophores into piles of white cliffs and leaving them here.
4. Terraforming the earth back to its original pristine condition as per Genesis 1.

What's with the "moral high ground" bit?

I and others are well aware of your extra Biblical explanations regarding the Flood.

And if you don't get how talking about integrity when you have an already set idea on the topic counts, then that's your problem not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I and others are well aware of your extra Biblical explanations regarding the Flood.

And if you don't get how talking about integrity when you have an already set idea on the topic counts, then that's your problem not mine.

Mine's not for sale.

 

[The Liturgist]

Siphoning the water off the earth and sending it to Neptune.

Why Neptune? And why should God go through what is frankly a hypothetical technological process (one which borders on science fiction) when creation exists entirely according to His will?

God is omnipotent and created the universe ex nihlo. Christianity emphatically rejects the idea, promoted by Mormons, that God merely arranged and organized existing matter.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mine's not for sale.

Yeah...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why Neptune? And why should God go through what is frankly a hypothetical technological process (one which borders on science fiction) when creation exists entirely according to His will?

God is omnipotent and created the universe ex nihlo. Christianity emphatically rejects the idea, promoted by Mormons, that God merely arranged and organized existing matter.

AV also believes that Noah came from New Jersey.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why Neptune?

Relax.

I'm just speculating.

Taking the water to Neptune, our outer planet, along with "floaties" such as skeletons and floral debris could serve as a warning to angels not to repeat the events of Genesis 6.

And why should God go through what is frankly a hypothetical technological process (one which borders on science fiction) when creation exists entirely according to His will?

The Flood and the creation events have nothing to do with each other.

The Creation was in 4004 BC, and the Flood came centuries later, in 2348 BC.

God is omnipotent and created the universe ex nihlo.

Indeed.

In 4004 BC, God spoke the universe into existence through a series of miracles, done over a six day period that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is today.

One miracle after another after another.

No science involved.

Christianity emphatically rejects the idea, promoted by Mormons, that God merely arranged and organized existing matter.

People need to learn the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

Here's a creationism test I once made up:

1. Define Embedded Age.
2. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
3. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
4. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
14. What was the first object in the universe that had mass?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV also believes that Noah came from New Jersey.

Yup.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup.

Why? Is it because of Jersey pine barrens? Because pine trees grow in other places in the world.