Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually I have and passed with flying colors. The professor tried to convince me to change my major because I was so good on proofs.
So then why are you totally ignoring everything he taught you?
Man, if you have a problem with that, you're going to fail any logic class, whether KerrMetric's teaching it or not.Let's see... you are the one in another thread that told me that if I dont know what is right, that I should trust the advice of the person that is right.
(I think I said I didnt know what was right, so how can I trust the person who is right?)
Yeah, you sound proficient in logic.
What does the resurrection of Jesus have to do with disbelieving that there was a global flood? I've never taken any formal course in logic but it doesn't seem to follow that if you don't believe in a global flood then you don't believe that Jesus was resurrected. That makes no sense whatsoever.And science says that Jesus wasnt ressurrected (because it cant happen) ...but you believe that.
I think everyone here but DMagoh is pretty clear on that.What does the resurrection of Jesus have to do with disbelieving that there was a global flood? I've never taken any formal course in logic but it doesn't seem to follow that if you don't believe in a global flood then you don't believe that Jesus was resurrected. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I just wanted to point that out.
Ringo
What does the resurrection of Jesus have to do with disbelieving that there was a global flood? I've never taken any formal course in logic but it doesn't seem to follow that if you don't believe in a global flood then you don't believe that Jesus was resurrected. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I just wanted to point that out.
Ringo
Let's see... you are the one in another thread that told me that if I dont know what is right, that I should trust the advice of the person that is right.
(I think I said I didnt know what was right, so how can I trust the person who is right?)
Yeah, you sound proficient in logic.
Man, if you have a problem with that, you're going to fail any logic class, whether KerrMetric's teaching it or not.
The problem with your logic is that most people don't start from "Science says the flood is not possible". They start from "Science says the flood did not happen because the evidence says it did not happen."If you believe this:
Science says the flood is not possible
Therefore, the flood didnt happen
Then you have to believe this:
Science says resurrection of the dead is not possible
Therefore, Jesus wasn't resurrected
Science also says the flood is not possible, and that people do not 'resurrect'.
Me said:always thought of it this way: God can do what science says can't happen. God can (since God can do anything), but DID NOT do what science says didn't happen.
So it's really a case of can't versus didn't. God can do what science says can't be done, but God didn't do what science says He didn't do.
Science says a person can't be raised from the dead. Doesn't mean God didn't do it. No long-term measurable repercussions to say it didn't happen.
Science says the world didn't get created in 6 days 6000 years ago. Means God didn't do it. Long-term measurable repecussions say it didn't happen.
Science says a normal person can't heal a sick Roman's slave just by saying that he is healed from a distance away. Doesn't mean He didn't. No long-term repercussions to say otherwise.
Science says the world didn't get deluged in a global flood of (pun intended) Biblical proportians. Means it didn't happen. Long-term measurables say it didn't happen.
I still don't understand why or how the resurrection - which, up to now, nobody here questioned - got into a debate about age in scripture. You brought it up, so let's examine it.If you think science is the end-all, then you cant pick and choose what you want to believe that science says. If science says 'people do not resurrect', then how can you willy-nilly decide that you choose not to believe science on that.
On the other hand, if you are like me and believe that science is not the end-all, then I can believe in the supernatural.
Mary of Magdela, Peter, John and Paul all also knew that 'people do not resurrect'. That's the whole point.If you think science is the end-all, then you cant pick and choose what you want to believe that science says. If science says 'people do not resurrect', then how can you willy-nilly decide that you choose not to believe science on that.
You can believe that the sun is grapefruit on the end of a bit of string for all I care; I was addressing your particular piece of 'logic' above. In terms of what science can say about them the global flood and the resurrection are not like events.On the other hand, if you are like me and believe that science is not the end-all, then I can believe in the supernatural.
Please stop ignoring the meat of people's posts and only commenting on the stuff that you're capable of deflecting. Everyone here knows what your logic looks like, and ebia did a pretty fantastic job of showing exactly how it is flawed.If you think science is the end-all, then you cant pick and choose what you want to believe that science says. If science says 'people do not resurrect', then how can you willy-nilly decide that you choose not to believe science on that.
On the other hand, if you are like me and believe that science is not the end-all, then I can believe in the supernatural.
Precisely. You have to remember that while the Bible was divinely inspired, it was written by men and subject to their perception of the world around them. It was written for the people of the time.Ringo again makes some excellent points. I think taking the era into account helps us realise that the people back then knew little or nothing of the outside world. Did they not for example still believe the earth was flat?
The point i am labouring to make is that when a mass flood hits an enclosed community of limited knowledge, there "whole world" may not always equate to "the whole world".
What does the resurrection of Jesus have to do with disbelieving that there was a global flood? I've never taken any formal course in logic but it doesn't seem to follow that if you don't believe in a global flood then you don't believe that Jesus was resurrected. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I just wanted to point that out.
Ringo
Ringo again makes some excellent points...
You have to remember that while the Bible was divinely inspired, it was written by men...
Not at all. That works whether or not the Noah story is historically accurate - all it requires is that it be a shared story of significance. People talk about shared stores in the same langage as so called "true" stories all the time, without distinguishing between the two in the words they use.Why would you want to follow someone who is a liar and a deceiver? If the story of Noah and the flood did not occur, then Jesus is a liar and deceiver. Jesus clearly taught:
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Evidently, either Jesus believed it happened, or He is a liar and deceiver.
I didn't say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver. I said that the flood story could very well be a myth that was handed down from generation to generation. Not everything in the Bible literally occurred as written; the Bible is chock full of symbolism and parables. Jesus Himself spoke in parables quite often.Why would you want to follow someone who is a liar and a deceiver? If the story of Noah and the flood did not occur, then Jesus is a liar and deceiver. Jesus clearly taught:
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Evidently, either Jesus believed it happened, or He is a liar and deceiver.
I didn't say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver. I said that the flood story could very well be a myth that was handed down from generation to generation. Not everything in the Bible literally occurred as written; the Bible is chock full of symbolism and parables. Jesus Himself spoke in parables quite often.
This is becoming a discussion about Bible interpretation and less about the subject at hand. Nobody disbelieves Jesus because they think that the sotry of Noah never happened. It's an acknowledgement of the limitations of science in Bible times and the fact that many of the stories in the Bible were symbolic.
You say you took a class in logic (and I have no reason to question whether you really did take that class), but the logic does not follow. You can acknowledge that there are parables in the Bible and still believe what Jesus taught. There is no mutual exclusivity.
Ringo
No he did not.I think part of the problem here is that Jesus did not allude to Noah in parabolic form, nor mention the flood as a "myth of old." He spoke of it as actually having happened.
This, of course, is also a load of steaming .... Jesus (like anyone else) frequently spoke less than literally without explicitly saying so. Sometimes when his hearers recognised that. Sometimes his hearers at the time didn't recognise that. And sometimes they thought he was speaking metaphorically when he was, in fact, speaking quite literally.3. Jesus was speaking parabolically, but didn't say so. This, of course, presents a problem because that wasn't what Jesus did elsewhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?