Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Piers Plowman]

Many Christians find the certainty of their salvation in their faith in Christ rather than their faith in a literal reading of Genesis.

Sorry, but I take the acts of God recorded in Genesis pretty seriously.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Yes, that is exactly what I meant." - BCP1928

And again:
You are in no position to say that about anyone at all since you don't know the true nature of anyone on this forum.

To do so is nothing short of horrible rudeness, especially since many of the people who argue against a literalist reading of the Bible do happen to be Christians too.


As BCP1928 also points out, and I'm going to quote them varbatim here:
"Many Christians find the certainty of their salvation in their faith in Christ rather than their faith in a literal reading of Genesis."
And I hold to that belief too. There is nowhere, in any major Christian group, that states that a belief in a literal reading of Genesis should be held to the same level as faith in Christ.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, but I take the acts of God recorded in Genesis pretty seriously.

And you're welcome to do so. Many of us do not hold to such a belief nor see a need to.

 

[Piers Plowman]

And again:
You are in no position to say that about anyone at all since you don't know the true nature of anyone on this forum.

To do so is nothing short of horrible rudeness, especially since many of the people who argue against a literalist reading of the Bible do happen to be Christians too.


As BCP1928 also points out, and I'm going to quote them varbatim here:
"Many Christians find the certainty of their salvation in their faith in Christ rather than their faith in a literal reading of Genesis."
And I hold to that belief too. There is nowhere, in any major Christian group, that states that a belief in a literal reading of Genesis should be held to the same level as faith in Christ.

And you're welcome to do so. Many of us do not hold to such a belief nor see a need to.

level of faith for God the Father ought to be on equal footing with the level of faith for God the Son.
If one does not, that makes him the out of norm, not the other way around.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

level of faith for God the Father ought to be on equal footing with the level of faith for God the Son.
If one does not, that makes him the out of norm, not the other way around.

And again: you're welcome to do so. But many of us do not see that the belief in a literal Genesis reading, which clashes horrible with what we see from God's creation and the history within, is necessary to be seen as a Christian or believe in Christ or God.

 

[Astrid]

Can you please explain which of these are assumptions, and how you arrive at that conclusion.
The question - Is God the author of the Bible, can be answered in another thread, but there is evidence for this. It's not an assumption.
The others are facts.

You appear not to lnow what the words assumption, fact, or
evidence mean.

if you ever go to court theres a very
painful shock coming your way.

 

[Piers Plowman]

And again: you're welcome to do so. But many of us do not see that the belief in a literal Genesis reading, which clashes horrible with what we see from God's creation and the history within, is necessary to be seen as a Christian or believe in Christ or God.

Why not go a step further, and question as to why God chose not to write Genesis on a level of average 'scientific' understanding?
Surely, God has His reasons which you and I cannot fathom.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not go a step further, and question as to why God chose not to write Genesis on a level of average 'scientific' understanding?
Surely, God has His reasons which you and I cannot fathom.

Since I believe that God would not willingly deceive us by having written a book that says one thing, then creating a world that shows an entirely different thing, and thus also means that fallible humans wrote the Bible and not good... I don't need to go a step further or even take such a step.

 

[BCP1928]

Sorry, but I take the acts of God recorded in Genesis pretty seriously.

That's fine, if it brings you closer to God then that's what you should do. Indeed, all Christians take them seriously, just not literally and you are not in a position to dictate that they must.

 

[Piers Plowman]

a world that shows an entirely different thing

according to whom...??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

according to whom...??

You're not being clever, you know.

 

[Piers Plowman]

That's fine, if it brings you closer to God then that's what you should do. Indeed, all Christians take them seriously, just not literally and you are not in a position to dictate that they must.

this is playing fast and loose with definitions. Are you pitting 'literalism' against 'scientific viewpoint'? That only further muddies the waters.

 

[BCP1928]

Since I believe that God would not willingly deceive us by having written a book that says one thing, then creating a world that shows an entirely different thing, and thus also means that fallible humans wrote the Bible and not good... I don't need to go a step further or even take such a step.

And it is also fallible humans who are reading it, even if it is divinely inspired.

 

[Piers Plowman]

You're not being clever, you know.

"Perhaps you could clarify what it is you’re asking as the question makes no sense to me as it stands. I can’t answer a question I don’t understand." - DaisyDay

 

[Piers Plowman]

And it is also fallible humans who are reading it, even if it is divinely inspired.

being 'fallible' is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Perhaps you could clarify what it is you’re asking as the question makes no sense to me as it stands. I can’t answer a question I don’t understand." - DaisyDay

You're still not being clever.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And it is also fallible humans who are reading it, even if it is divinely inspired.

That is very much the truth.

 

[BCP1928]

this is playing fast and loose with definitions. Are you pitting 'literalism' against 'scientific viewpoint'? That only further muddies the waters.

Nonsense. It is not necessary to use a 'scientific viewpoint' to entertain a non-literal understanding of Genesis.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Nonsense. It is not necessary to use a 'scientific viewpoint' to entertain a non-literal understanding of Genesis.

I am interested in hearing the viewpoint which you use.

 

[Astrid]

That's fine, if it brings you closer to God then that's what you should do. Indeed, all Christians take them seriously, just not literally and you are not in a position to dictate that they must.

If God there is, I am ready to doubt that adopting and spreading
gross falsehoods gets anyone closer to that God.