How certain are you of your faith beliefs?

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not sure he ever defended a global flood.

The majority of Christians are not committed to a world wide flood, the that is only demanded by a (I think incorrect) uber literal interpretation of Genesis. One I'm not even sure works at all in the original languages as used at the time it was written. .

I am well aware most Christians aren't fundamentalists

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not a Creationist so I am not committed to the view that the flood was global.

I am free to follow the evidence where it leads.

Nor am I committed to interpreting everything in Genesis literally.

So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing?
You don't even disagree with what I said about the subject?

Thanks for informing me that in the future, I don't need to take it seriously when you pretend to disagree with something I say. I guess.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not sure he ever defended a global flood.

He certainly questioned my objections to it.
What else would that mean, if not defending the bible story as written?

The majority of Christians are not committed to a world wide flood, the that is only demanded by a (I think incorrect) uber literal interpretation of Genesis. One I'm not even sure works at all in the original languages as used at the time it was written. .

I tend to disagree here.
It seems to me that if we look at history, it seems as if christians seriously took everything literally.

Why else did every big scientific discovery cause such a stir?
Why else the need for book burnings?

It seems rather obvious to me that the shift to a "metaphorical" interpretation of every one of those stories only happened after the sciences got so solid that denying it would simply make the religion look bad.

However, I'm very open to being proven wrong here. In fact, I would love for that to happen... then I can use that evidence / proof to show YECs and other fundamentalists that what they believe is not how it was intended to be believed.

But I've never seen such evidence.
With the things that I know today, I'ld say it's extremely likely that the authors of these books very much literally believed what they wrote down.

 

[keith99]

He certainly questioned my objections to it.
What else would that mean, if not defending the bible story as written?

You were using a definition of as written that means as interpreted by fundamentalists.

He refused your definition.

 

[keith99]

He certainly questioned my objections to it.
What else would that mean, if not defending the bible story as written?



I tend to disagree here.
It seems to me that if we look at history, it seems as if christians seriously took everything literally.

Why else did every big scientific discovery cause such a stir?
Why else the need for book burnings?

It seems rather obvious to me that the shift to a "metaphorical" interpretation of every one of those stories only happened after the sciences got so solid that denying it would simply make the religion look bad.

However, I'm very open to being proven wrong here. In fact, I would love for that to happen... then I can use that evidence / proof to show YECs and other fundamentalists that what they believe is not how it was intended to be believed.

But I've never seen such evidence.
With the things that I know today, I'ld say it's extremely likely that the authors of these books very much literally believed what they wrote down.

Ah I see, you have bought into the most extreme version of a modern myth.

My understanding is that the very separation into real and fiction is in fact a comparatively modern idea, so the authors could not have made such a distinction.

I wish I could give you what you want re YECs, but I cannot and I'd claim God himself (if he exists) could not.

Why?

Read the Genesis account of Creation. They insist it is 6 literal 24 hours days, yet it was not until the 4th day that God made the Sun and Moon.

So how do they make it work for a literal 24 hour day with sunrise and sunset when there is not sun?

Doh!

 

[theophilus777]

One piece I find interesting, is asking believers how certain they are of their personal faith belief and or belief in God.

In other words, I am curious how many Christians are willing to admit; they may be wrong in what they believe and it is possible, the God they believe in does not exist.

In regards to atheists, It would also be interesting to hear how many have the position, that there is a zero percent chance, that a God exists.

Thanks.

100% certain. There is a point one can get to where Faith is no longer about His existence.

Now, in terms of the substance of my Faith? If that ever stops growing (including changing) it means I'm dead. Hopefully that never happens while I'm still physically alive ...

 

[theophilus777]

Please give me one verifiable example of a person in the real world that came up with christianity without:
- access to a bible / christians
- being told about christianity by someone with access to a bible / christians

An entire tribe of American Indians. They knew the whole story before any European missionaries ever found them. They had everything but the Name of Jesus.

 

[theophilus777]

All these events make testable predictions. Each test fails.

To zoom in on just one of those: the flood story.

It predicts:
- global and universal layer of flood sediments in the same geological column all over the earth
- genetic bottlenecks in all life forms which, when estimated when they took place, should match the period of the universal flood layer.

Neither the flood layer nore the bottlenecks exist.

Story is falsified.

End of story.

And yet ToE can not have any beneficial mutations start with a population greater than 1.

 

[theophilus777]

I'm not sure he ever defended a global flood.

The majority of Christians are not committed to a world wide flood, the that is only demanded by a (I think incorrect) uber literal interpretation of Genesis. One I'm not even sure works at all in the original languages as used at the time it was written. .

Correct. On the other hand, there was a known local flood of the area in question that fits well.

 

[theophilus777]

He certainly questioned my objections to it.
What else would that mean, if not defending the bible story as written?

You answered your own question; to question your objection.

I tend to disagree here.
It seems to me that if we look at history, it seems as if christians seriously took everything literally.

Why else did every big scientific discovery cause such a stir?
Why else the need for book burnings?

It seems rather obvious to me that the shift to a "metaphorical" interpretation of every one of those stories only happened after the sciences got so solid that denying it would simply make the religion look bad.

This is not a historical view at all. For that you'd have to go much farther back; the fact is, Jews never taught Genesis as literal. Where does Christianity come from?

However, I'm very open to being proven wrong here. In fact, I would love for that to happen... then I can use that evidence / proof to show YECs and other fundamentalists that what they believe is not how it was intended to be believed.

Heh. Good luck ...

But I've never seen such evidence.
With the things that I know today, I'ld say it's extremely likely that the authors of these books very much literally believed what they wrote down.

Not the first section of Genesis:

Genesis as Ancient Cosmology - Dr John Walton P1 0f 6 - YouTube

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just follow the direction of the river until you reach the exit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8TUwHTfOOU


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Albion]

An entire tribe of American Indians. They knew the whole story before any European missionaries ever found them. They had everything but the Name of Jesus.

That's not true. However, I'm willing to listen to you defend your proposition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet ToE can not have any beneficial mutations start with a population greater than 1.

ToE can't have what-now?

Didn't get that at all.