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.
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 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.
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. .
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.
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.
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.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
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.
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. .
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.
Just follow the direction of the river until you reach the exit.
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.
And yet ToE can not have any beneficial mutations start with a population greater than 1.
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?