Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Astrid]

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

Literalism give you, among other thing, a world wide flood
that can be, has been, disproved 10,000 times over.

No educated person believes the genesis flood account is literal.


An labeling all that disproof “ scientific” or
“ viewpoint“ does not cancel it.

its no more a “viewpoint” than “ Pi= 3.14…”
is a viewpoint.

The viewpoint goes to the Biblical literalist who would
have to go with Pi= 3.000…

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can't be a coincidence that many folks on this thread who argue against literallist readings happen to be the same folks who apparently have no overt concerns for their own personal salvation...

You just caught me after my deconversion. I would have never argued for literalist readings on this topic nor did I think they had any bearing on my salivation. (I likely would have never discussed my salvation with any of you as that was between me and my confessor.)

 

[Piers Plowman]

Literalism give you, among other thing, a world wide flood
that can, has been, disproved 10,000 times over.

No educated person believes the genesis flood account is literal.


An labeling all that disproof “ scientific” does not cancel it.

Being rather unimaginative, here.
Going back to what Warden said...

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.

Apparently it is too much of a leap in imagination, to think, that God can perfectly create the world in six days and have it seen as if it has been created over six millennia, six million years, six galactic years, or what have you.
How would you and I know?

 

[Piers Plowman]

You just caught me after my deconversion. I would have never argued for literalist readings on this topic nor did I think they had any bearing on my salivation. (I likely would have never discussed my salvation with any of you as that was between me and my confessor.)

The sheer amount of vested interest pitted against literallism is rather poignant, is what I am saying.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Apparently it is too much of a leap in imagination, to think, that God can perfectly create the world in six days and have it seen as if it has been created over six millennia, six million years, six galactic years, or what have you.
How would you and I know?

What would be the point in such a thing? Why would God create a universe last Thursday with all the evidence pointing to it having existed for 14.5 billion years? What would anyone benefit from that, especially God? Why deceive us like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was being facetious.

But I do not believe that accepting a global flood as a real event, despite all the evidence to the contrary, means anything when the whole point of being Christian is to accept Christ as your personal lord and saviour.

Aren't we supposed to grow in grace?

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Using theological terms, you're just satisfied with initial sanctification, and progressive sanctification can take a hike.

If it was the former, you'd be called... oh lord, what would you be called? Genesians? Genesists?

Would you hire a mechanic that was satisfied just to earn his license, but couldn't care less about learning anything new?

In other words, would you hire him if he could change a carburetor in a '77 Maverick with his eyes closed, but didn't know what fuel injection was?

 

[Piers Plowman]

What would be the point in such a thing? Why would God create a universe last Thursday with all the evidence pointing to it having existed for 14.5 billion years? What would anyone benefit from that, especially God? Why deceive us like that?

He demands faith from us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Aren't we supposed to grow in grace?

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Using theological terms, you're just satisfied with initial sanctification, and progressive sanctification can take a hike.

You really shouldn't pretend to imagine you know what other people think. It's very rude behaviour.

Would you hire a mechanic that was satisfied just to earn his license, but couldn't care less about learning anything new?

In other words, would you hire him if he could change a carburetor in a '77 Maverick with his eyes closed, but didn't know what fuel injection was?

And the relevance of that to me not accepting Genesis as literal is...?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He demands faith from us.

And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

 

[Piers Plowman]

And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

Romans 3:4 -- adhering to literallism avoids risks that comes from not doing so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Romans 3:4 -- adhering to literallism avoids risks that comes from not doing so.

Answer the question put to you:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

 

[Astrid]

Being rather unimaginative, here.
Going back to what Warden said...

Apparently it is too much of a leap in imagination, to think, that God can perfectly create the world in six days and have it seen as if it has been created over six millennia, six million years, six galactic years, or what have you.
How would you and I know?

ive an excellent imagination.and last thursdayism
is a rather obvious idea.

If that’s your game, knocking over the checkers board,fine,
I can move you to ig city.

the same as I did for the big advocate of
last thursdayism here,
who has followed me around for years complaining
about being ignored.

Do you have something sensible to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea of my understanding of the Bible being 'particular sectarian theology' to you I have difficult time taking in important consideration, seeing that I place the certainty of my salvation on my interpretation of the Bible which stems from my understanding of the Bible which hinges on my faith in the authority of the Bible.

Some people, when they get saved, just hang around the Cross and go nowhere.

And that's their prerogative, of course.

But to just hang around the Cross and take potshots at others who venture out and believe in a literal creation, literal global flood, literal this and literal that, is childish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Warden was being facetious, maybe, but it's true. To be a Christian one must believe in the Atonement, but it is not necessary to understand it. In fact most Christian churches teach that it is beyond our understanding.

I'm not sure why we're discussing salvation, when the topic is a global flood.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Answer the question put to you:

I'm not seeing the word 'please'...

 

[dlamberth]

If you don't believe Noah's Ark was a literal ark, can you fully understand a global flood?

Only in my wildest imagination.

 

[Piers Plowman]

ive an excellent imagination.and last thursdayism
is a rather obvious idea.

If that’s your game, knocking over the checkers board,fine,
I can move you to ig city.

the same as I did for the big advocate of
last thursdayism here,
who has followed me around for years complaining
about being ignored.

Do you have something sensible to say?

If you have problem with stalkers, I will press 'ignore' on your profile, as you wish.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not seeing the word 'please'...

Answer the question put to you:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

 

[Piers Plowman]

Answer the question put to you:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

I'm not seeing the word 'please'...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not seeing the word 'please'...

I'll have to reply to this one because if you do a double quote in a post, I just end up replying to an empty post.

And I'll keep at this until you answer it. So again:

Answer the question put to you:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?