Noah's Ark

[yeshuaslavejeff]

He's a hoot.

But he did say something here I agree with @ 07:45.

Why is it all the stories about Noah's flood (from other countries) contradict each other in detail?

Actually, all the stories from other countries verify the world wide flood, as does all the so-called 'scientific' evidence everywhere, though the world skews it (changes it to try to prevent others from finding out).
The mystery of wickedness exposed and revealed by the LIGHT (JESUS) is DELIGHTFUL to behold and wonder at ....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, all the stories from other countries verify the world wide flood, as does all the so-called 'scientific' evidence everywhere, though the world skews it (changes it to try to prevent others from finding out).
The mystery of wickedness exposed and revealed by the LIGHT (JESUS) is DELIGHTFUL to behold and wonder at ....

Sorry but you could not be more wrong. You obviously do not understand the concept of scientific evidence since all of it tells us that there was no flood.

I can help you with that concept.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

idea

By not resting in YHWH'S WORD,
YHWH'S PLAN,
YHWH'S SALVATION,
in JESUS CHRIST,

you choose to remain in, to rest in, the errors and destruction of the whole society/ world/ mankind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By not resting in YHWH'S WORD,
YHWH'S PLAN,
YHWH'S SALVATION,
in JESUS CHRIST,

you choose to remain in, to rest in, the errors and destruction of the whole society/ world/ mankind.

You may not believe this, but different Christians have different interpretations of the Bible.

Just because someone has a different interpretation than you do does not mean that that person is not a Christian. Just because someone has a different interpretation than you do does not make that person wrong.

 

[Colter]

There is a difference between saying "I don't know the source of the Universe" and saying "There's this being that is the source of the universe and He has these very specific attributes, chief among them is that he manifested himself as himself to be sacrificed to himself 2017 years ago so that man may be atoned to Him."

I think that is one of the key reasons the Teleological Argument fails.

I don't belive in the atonment doctrine.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Actually, all the stories from other countries verify the world wide flood, as does all the so-called 'scientific' evidence everywhere

There's no evidence that I am aware of for a world-wide flood. Certainly nothing in geology.

, though the world skews it (changes it to try to prevent others from finding out).

You and everyone else can take a few intro geology classes. They teach them at just about any college or university around you. And the intro ones are not that difficult.

If you think something is being "hidden" from you, then it is up to you to take the classes and learn what is already known. And has been known for a couple centuries now.

The mystery of wickedness exposed and revealed by the LIGHT (JESUS) is DELIGHTFUL to behold and wonder at ....

Where is this happening at?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I don't belive in the atonment doctrine.

But you do believe in Grace, correct?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You may not believe this, but different Christians have different interpretations of the Bible.

nah... really !?

Thanks be to God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ that CHRIST IS PREACHED ! Even when it is for profit and not with pure motive....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There's no evidence that I am aware of for a world-wide flood. Certainly nothing in geology.

So ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

nah... really !?

Thanks be to God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ that CHRIST IS PREACHED ! Even when it is for profit and not with pure motive....

If you understood that you would not have such a huge problem with Colter. He is a Christian that accepts reality. You would be surprised at the number of Christians that do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So ?

I see that you forgot already. You claimed that there was scientific evidence for the flood. Or perhaps you realized that that was an error.

 

[Colter]

Now, I know you didn't mean it that way but that is incredibly insulting. You are telling me I was doing it wrong or I wasn't really interested in doing it right. Which truly denigrates whatever pain I felt at the time. I know you are only constructing more unfalsifiable claims (it seems to be a specialty) but do be advised that you know NOTHING about me but you are more than willing to pass judgement.

Which, if you were to read your bible you might learn is something frowned upon in Christianity.

But I do know something about you, you protect assumptions onto what I belive and then fane a bunch of drama when I question your sincerity. Faith comes before knowing God, not after daring him to reveal himself to you.

 

[Colter]

But that isn't the be-all and end-all to the Teleological argument is it? It is the spring board to prove the existence of God, not just as an ineffible concept but as a concrete being with specific attributes.

Otherwise the Teleological Argument is simply plastering the name "God" onto whatever it is we can't really understand even in the abstract (things like saying "God is Ultimate Truth"). Just meaningless word play.

But if you are not God, then you can either accept that he is absolute and you are not or continue to raise a multiplicity of clever sounding objections all dressed up as facts.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But I do know something about you, you protect assumptions onto what I belive and then fane a bunch of drama when I question your sincerity.

My apologies for assuming something about your version of soteriology that is why I phrased it as a QUESTION.

And by your fruit I feel I know you just a bit better.

Faith comes before knowing God, not after daring him to reveal himself to you.

The fact that I lack the faith you have does not necessarily mean I am wrong and you are right. But I understand that you are scared that my path is not inherently in error and you lack the ability to definitively point out that error. So you do what so many of your faith do and place the blame on me for failing to arrive at the same place you are at.

Don't sweat it and no need to apologize but do be aware that it is a pretty hackneyed response.

 

[Colter]

But you do believe in Grace, correct?

Sure, but grace isn't conditional to killing an innocent man. God loves us as a Father, we are all sons and daughters of God.

 

[bhsmte]

But if you are not God, then you can either accept that he is absolute and you are not or continue to raise a multiplicity of clever sounding objections all dressed up as facts.

Disagree. All one has to do is sit back and let those making claims about a god, to show they have evidence to support the claims.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But if you are not God, then you can either accept that he is absolute and you are not or continue to raise a multiplicity of clever sounding objections all dressed up as facts.

"Clever sounding". LOL. Thanks!

I will agree that God if He existed is well beyond me, but that does not mean that He is wholly incomprehensible. Otherwise you wouldn't even have a faith! A perfectly incomprehensible God is not the way religions operate. The hide behind the "incomprehensible" aspect of God whenever they run into people who simply don't take their word for what God is like.

Admit it! At some level you feel you "understand" some conception of God. But that understanding I do not agree with and I'm willing to put out my "clever sounding" reasons which you respond to by constructing more unfalsifiable claims.

And in the end you hide behind our inability to "understand" this infinite God while still feeling like you understand some portion of Him. You want my objections to fail because no one really understands God except for the parts you feel you understand.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Sure, but grace isn't conditional to killing an innocent man. God loves us as a Father, we are all sons and daughters of God.

Was Christ's sacrifice then not necessary? (I am fascinated by this because it is a much more ecumenical version of Christianity than I normally see here. I would prefer a Christ who's "value" is in the teachings not the suffering. That always sounded so cruel and unnecessary to me.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was Christ's sacrifice then not necessary? (I am fascinated by this because it is a much more ecumenical version of Christianity than I normally see here. I would prefer a Christ who's "value" is in the teachings not the suffering. That always sounded so cruel and unnecessary to me.)

Perhaps Colter is a more advanced Christian. I have always found the idea of a blood sacrifice to be a hangover from the tribal days of Judaism.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Perhaps Colter is a more advanced Christian. I have always found the idea of a blood sacrifice to be a hangover from the tribal days of Judaism.

I agree. It always seemed more interesting to me that Christ's teachings would be the key, and the sacrifice more a symbol. But I always got the vibe from many denominations that yeah the teachings were nice and all but the sacrifice was the key.