Christians do not "own" morality

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not know 100% that a flood occurred. All I'm saying is the evidence suggests several cataclysmic events occurred, one being a flood.

Like I said before according to Enoch and the other texts as well as other sources they were nephilimic progeny and those that worshipped them. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not 100% sure about anything but the evidence does suggest that.

What evidence exactly? The evidence you've presented seems to suggest that many different cultures have similar myths, not that those myths accurately depict something that actually happened.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, and don't you find that suspicious that many different religions have a different spin on a very similar story, doesn't it make sense that these stories have been passed down and people have gradually changed it over time?

Ruthie only reads and believe the scholars who buy the story and she has either stayed away from the many scholars/historians who will state the bible is a book of theology and not a book of history and has many credibility issues.

Let's face it, the bible itself has been studied mostly by people who are Christian to begin with and have significant bias in how much credibility they put into the story, from a historical standpoint. In fact, many of these scholars and historians, would be blackballed, if they were highly critical of the book, because some of them get a paycheck from a theology institution.

It has only been in recent decades, that this has started to change and the bible and NT specifically, has undergone a more objective, thorough historical method analysis. Bottom line, the majority of properly credentialed NT historians and scholars will say, the bible may have tidbits that are historically credible, but overall, there are many parts that can not be considered historically credible (for many reasons).

Those who choose to believe the story and need to believe the story, will use confirmation bias and pick out the people who tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Ruthie24]

Yes, and don't you find that suspicious that many different religions have a different spin on a very similar story, doesn't it make sense that these stories have been passed down and people have gradually changed it over time?

I'm not 100% sure of anything. Yes I do have suspicions. I always try to err on the side of caution when it comes to ancient stuff. The scholars in the first century felt that the book of Enoch was inspired and authentic. With the other flood stories and religions, I'm not completely sure how everything ties in yet although I do have a theory and how they came to be before and after the cataclysms but I'm not 100% sure about that either.

 

[bhsmte]

According to the texts there was nothing but nephilim and their progeny as well as those that completely worshipped them. Apparently Noahs family etc was the only line that wasn't tampered with by the Nephilim. Interestingly there are over 200 cataclysmic flood stories all over the world that allude to very a very similar situation.

Stories does not equate to truth Ruthie. Anyone can tell a story, at any time.

To determine whether something as what the bible declares regarding a flood happened, there would be obvious evidence that geologists and other scientists would identify and be able to confirm a flood did indeed occur. Scientists have been looking for evidence of a flood for centuries and no one has found any and they have only discovered, the evidence show that no flood during that time period ever occurred.

 

[Ruthie24]

Ruthie only reads and believe the scholars who buy the story and she has either stayed away from the many scholars/historians who will state the bible is a book of theology and not a book of history and has many credibility issues.

Let's face it, the bible itself has been studied mostly by people who are Christian to begin with and have significant bias in how much credibility they put into the story, from a historical standpoint. In fact, many of these scholars and historians, would be blackballed, if they were highly critical of the book, because some of them get a paycheck from a theology institution.

It has only been in recent decades, that this has started to change and the bible and NT specifically, has undergone a more objective, thorough historical method analysis. Bottom line, the majority of properly credentialed NT historians and scholars will say, the bible may have tidbits that are historically credible, but overall, there are many parts that can not be considered historically credible (for many reasons).

Those who choose to believe the story and need to believe the story, will use confirmation bias and pick out the people who tell them what they want to hear.

No bhsmte,

I wrote a post a while back about how I look at evidence. I have very contradictory sources I think over 100-150 somewhere in there. The truth lies somewhere in the middle between these scholars it seems.

 

[Ruthie24]

Stories does not equate to truth Ruthie. Anyone can tell a story, at any time.

To determine whether something as what the bible declares regarding a flood happened, there would be obvious evidence that geologists and other scientists would identify and be able to confirm a flood did indeed occur. Scientists have been looking for evidence of a flood for centuries and no one has found any and they have only discovered, the evidence show that no flood during that time period ever occurred.

I disagree

 

[Ruthie24]

What evidence exactly? The evidence you've presented seems to suggest that many different cultures have similar myths, not that those myths accurately depict something that actually happened.

As soon as I can I'll post my sources and you can do a search if you want.

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree

Then, it would appear you do not require objective evidence to substantiate whether a flood happened, you would believe stories instead, even in the absence of evidence that would be present and easily identifiable if a flood did indeed occur.

That's fine if it works for you and confirms what you need to believe, but I wouldn't expect that your perception would be accurate.

If you were sick, would you believe a story someone told you regarding a disease they thought you had based on what the bible said, or would you go to the doctor and have him or her run objective testing, that would determine whether you had the disease? If the objective testing came back that you did not have the disease, would you still believe you had the disease because a story claimed that you did?

 

[Cearbhall]

I disagree

That's the difference between historical stories and fiction stories. There really isn't room for disagreement.

 

[Ruthie24]

Then, it would appear you do not require objective evidence to substantiate whether a flood happened, you would believe stories instead, even in the absence of evidence that would be present and easily identifiable if a flood did indeed occur.

That's fine if it works for you and confirms what you need to believe, but I wouldn't expect that your perception would be accurate.

If you were sick, would you believe a story someone told you regarding a disease they thought you had based on what the bible said, or would you go to the doctor and have him or her run objective testing, that would determine whether you had the disease? If the objective testing came back that you did not have the disease, would you still believe you had the disease because a story claimed that you did?

I disagree because I do have evidence for a cataclysm including a flood. I don't rely 100% on myths. You have to look at other things.

 

[Syd the Human]

I disagree because I do have evidence for a cataclysm including a flood. I don't rely 100% on myths. You have to look at other things.

Slip of the "tongue"?

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree because I do have evidence for a cataclysm including a flood. I don't rely 100% on myths. You have to look at other things.

I think we would all love to see the objective evidence you claim to have, that shows the flood occurred.

You would be able to do, what no geologist has been able to do, for the last several hundred years.

Please post this objective evidence, that can be verified, that a flood happened as described in the bible.

 

[bhsmte]

Ruthie,

Here is a paper from Christian Geologists in regards to the biblical flood.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=RpUyb1ETyCC0pnIgjvoOjQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.aWc

 

[Ruthie24]

Slip of the "tongue"?

I don't know what you are talking about. Like I said before, I'm not a 100% on anything. I just see a lot of discrepancy.

 

[Syd the Human]

I disagree because I do have evidence for a cataclysm including a flood. I don't rely 100% on myths. You have to look at other things.

I don't know what you are talking about. Like I said before, I'm not a 100% on anything. I just see a lot of discrepancy.

Since you refer to religious writings, including ones to do with Christianity, you just called Christianity a myth and not a religion.

 

[Ruthie24]

Since you refer to religious writings, including ones to do with Christianity, you just called Christianity a myth and not a religion.

Oh for Pete's sake Syd, why don't you read a little bit more into what I said. I am referring to the 200 flood myths all over the world. Give me a break. I said I am not 100% sure on the cataclysm, therefore I rely on the flood myths all over the world, archeology, and geology.

Listen, if you are so convinced there is no God, why do you care what I think or believe. I already told you it's your freedom to believe whatever you want. So what do you care what I believe or don't believe? Seriously? I can't prove anything 100% and neither can you. Honestly what do you care?

 

[Syd the Human]

Oh for Pete's sake Syd, why don't you read a little bit more into what I said. I am referring to the 200 flood myths all over the world. Give me a break. I said I am not 100% sure on the cataclysm, therefore I rely on the flood myths all over the world, archeology, and geology.

Listen, if you are so convinced there is no God, why do you care what I think or believe. I already told you it's your freedom to believe whatever you want. So what do you care what I believe or don't believe? Seriously? I can't prove anything 100% and neither can you. Honestly what do you care?

I enjoy debating.

I enjoy seeing how religious people think.

I also think it's important to have people think about their beliefs, not necessarily change them in any way but to have a good grasp on what they base their lives on.

 

[Ruthie24]

I enjoy debating.

I enjoy seeing how religious people think.

I also think it's important to have people think about their beliefs, not necessarily change them in any way but to have a good grasp on what they base their lives on.

Oh for Pete's sake, seriously? As if I need a lecture from you? And I'm the one that's self righteous? Really? Woman do you even know me as a person? The answer to that is a big fat NO. It's not your job to get me to "think" about my beliefs and how they affect my life. What kind of arrogant crap is that? As if I haven't gone over the god question my entire life. Oh but I have to "think some more" because I just couldn't possibly be right according to your world view. Do you people get it that it's not cool to force your agenda down people's throats or get them to "think" as if they don't have the capacity already? What the hell is wrong with you people? I have repeatedly told you it's your right to believe however you want. Who gave you the magic god/godless wand and granted you all authority on world religions? What a bunch of sanctimonious crap.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh for Pete's sake, seriously? As if I need a lecture from you? And I'm the one that's self righteous? Really? Woman do you even know me as a person? The answer to that is a big fat NO. It's not your job to get me to "think" about my beliefs and how they affect my life. What kind of arrogant crap is that? As if I haven't gone over the god question my entire life. Oh but I have to "think some more" because I just couldn't possibly be right according to your world view. Do you people get it that it's not cool to force your agenda down people's throats or get them to "think" as if they don't have the capacity already? What the hell is wrong with you people? I have repeatedly told you it's your right to believe however you want. Who gave you the magic god/godless wand and granted you all authority on world religions? What a bunch of sanctimonious crap.

Ruthie,

We don't know you personally, true, but every time you post something on this board, you give clues about yourself and that is true for all of us.

One way we can perceive you, is how you support the claims you make and whether they are based on objective evidence or subjective evidence. You claim to have objective evidence, but you have only presented subjective evidence, which is more personally driven, as opposed to objective evidence, which can be verified and plainly seen by all.

Let me finish with this, I would have no quarrel with you, if you said; I believe what I do on faith and I realize there is not any objective evidence, but I have my own subjective evidence that I rely on. Also, I can understand why others may disagree with me, but I have faith in what I believe and it works for me.

You don't do this though, you claim you are baffled as to why people aren't connected with the spiritual side like you and you claim to have objective evidence to support your claims, which you don't. I have yet to see any believer, produce objective evidence to support their claims, because none exists. Nothing wrong with believing on faith and personal subjective evidence, if it makes you a better person, just don't be baffled when others disagree with you, because they have a different method of verifying truths as compared to you.

Any comments on the paper I posted from Christian geologists in regards to the flood?

 

[Syd the Human]

Oh for Pete's sake, seriously? As if I need a lecture from you? And I'm the one that's self righteous? Really? Woman do you even know me as a person? The answer to that is a big fat NO. It's not your job to get me to "think" about my beliefs and how they affect my life. What kind of arrogant crap is that? As if I haven't gone over the god question my entire life. Oh but I have to "think some more" because I just couldn't possibly be right according to your world view. Do you people get it that it's not cool to force your agenda down people's throats or get them to "think" as if they don't have the capacity already? What the hell is wrong with you people? I have repeatedly told you it's your right to believe however you want. Who gave you the magic god/godless wand and granted you all authority on world religions? What a bunch of sanctimonious crap.

First off can't we talk without you getting so upset?

Second, I'm not trying to lecture you at all. I thought you meant in general. I don't think everyone thinks everything through. I know I didn't, and I'm not doing this to look down on anyone. There are people way smarter than me who are religious.

Third, I don't have an authority on any religion and I never claimed to.

Fourth, the only agenda I have is to enjoy debating, which inevitably leads to thinking.