Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see where Christ spoke of Job but He did speak about the Ninevites as an historic event which His listeners knew to be historic:
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." Yet He,
answering, said to them, "A generation, wicked and an adulteress, for a sign is seeking, and a sign will not be given to it
except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For even as Jonah was in the bowel of the sea monster three days and three
nights, thus will the Son of Mankind be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. "Men, Ninevites, will be
rising in the judging with this generation and will be condemning it, for they repent at the heralding of Jonah, and lo! more
than Jonah is here! (Mat 12:38-41)
Jesus never said: Like the cute story that no one would believe if they had any sense about Johan being in the bowel of the sea monster three days and three nights, thus also no one should believe I will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
No, He and audience took the Jonah/Ninevite story literaly and would take His being entombed literally as well.
I am an ex-Christian, ex-theist and here is my take;
The Bible was never intended to be taken allegorically. If today it is taken that way, it hurts the credibility of the Book. It would be like taking a biology book from 200 years ago and stating that was intended to be taken allegorically -essentially fictionally- and it really is a good book. Actually it was incorrect science and nothing more. The book might have value on Ebay as a historical piece but that's it.
All religions are man-made but depending on what is meant by "better", some are in fact better than others. Some require, or at least suggest the believer to do all kinds of things; missionary trips, celibacy, etc. If "better" implies that one religion is no more valid than the other, then that is true.
Finally, I would contend that seeing the "real face of God" requires a belief in magic in the truest sense of the word, "magic" being synonyms with having a belief of something that does not conform with what we know as reality. (Your last sentence could be taken two different ways and I may have taken it the wrong way.)
You have the mind set of a believer that wanted to confirm the existence of God through magic. And now, you are an Atheist because you did not find the magic you were looking for.
You are what I call a "newbie" atheist or level I atheist.
Give it time and try to move to a higher more complex stage of atheism. You have just discovered there is no Santa and feel some sort of relief. You are OK with your discovery, I get that. But, you are still looking for magic. But, the existence of Santa or "God" is really a moot issue.
To see the face of God you need to study yourself, mankind, history, mathematics, physics, cosmology, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, the great philosophers, etc. Eventually you will come face to face with God. But, to do so you must leave your very basic atheism behind.
I agree in that some religions are less intrusive than others.
The key is to marry religion with science and to accept your humanity. Einstein was not a fan of Quantum Mechanics and used to say "God does not play with dice".
God is out there in the universe and you will not find God through magic.
Does that mean the "magic" of religion is bad? Not necessarily! Magic can be wonderful if you understand the positive effect of magic on humans. The Sola Scriptura literalists get something out of believing in Noah's Ark, no doubt.
When Jesus turned the water into wine, did He use magic? No.
When He multiplied the five cakes of bread and two fish to feed over 5,000 people, did He use magic? No.
It was all done by God's spirit. The same when He raised people from the dead.
Noah didn't need magic to construct the ark. God didn't need magic to bring about a world-wide flood.
God is not in some far away place. He is everywhere:
Act 17:25 neither is He attended by human hands, as if requiring anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all."
Act 17:27 they may surely grope for Him and may be finding Him, though to be sure, not far from each one of us is He inherent,
Act 17:28 for in Him we are living and moving and are,
You have the mind set of a believer that wanted to confirm the existence of God through magic. And now, you are an Atheist because you did not find the magic you were looking for.
You are what I call a "newbie" atheist or level I atheist.
Give it time and try to move to a higher more complex stage of atheism. You have just discovered there is no Santa and feel some sort of relief. You are OK with your discovery, I get that. But, you are still looking for magic. But, the existence of Santa or "God" is really a moot issue.
To see the face of God you need to study yourself, mankind, history, mathematics, physics, cosmology, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, the great philosophers, etc. Eventually you will come face to face with God. But, to do so you must leave your very basic atheism behind.
I agree in that some religions are less intrusive than others.
The key is to marry religion with science and to accept your humanity. Einstein was not a fan of Quantum Mechanics and used to say "God does not play with dice".
God is out there in the universe and you will not find God through magic.
Does that mean the "magic" of religion is bad? Not necessarily! Magic can be wonderful if you understand the positive effect of magic on humans. The Sola Scriptura literalists get something out of believing in Noah's Ark, no doubt.
I say this with all due respect; what you are presenting sounds like gobbledygook. I have been an atheist for 40 years. I have looked at religions up one side and down the other. They are loaded with inherent flaws. However, the concept of god is not loaded with inherent flaws. The problem with believing in a god is that there needs to be some evidence. As the years, and centuries go by, more and more things attributed to god are being shown to be free of god's hand, or at least there is no evidence that it is the work of a god. Evolution is one example, the Big Bang is another.
I would not mind finding a god, but when I say "finding" I mean really finding one, not imagining one, or more accurate, imagining the effect of one through self-delusive emotions. Similarly, I would not mind a god speaking to me, but again, he would have to actually speak to me audibly. I would have to hear his voice with my ears. To believe in a god I need the same standard of evidence as any other monumental allegation, such as a claim that human-like extraterrestrials are infiltrating society, for example.
I say this with all due respect; what you are presenting sounds like gobbledygook. I have been an atheist for 40 years. I have looked at religions up one side and down the other. They are loaded with inherent flaws. However, the concept of god is not loaded with inherent flaws. The problem with believing in a god is that there needs to be some evidence. As the years, and centuries go by, more and more things attributed to god are being shown to be free of god's hand, or at least there is no evidence that it is the work of a god. Evolution is one example, the Big Bang is another.
I would not mind finding a god, but when I say "finding" I mean really finding one, not imagining one, or more accurate, imagining the effect of one through self-delusive emotions. Similarly, I would not mind a god speaking to me, but again, he would have to actually speak to me audibly. I would have to hear his voice with my ears. To believe in a god I need the same standard of evidence as any other monumental allegation, such as a claim that human-like extraterrestrials are infiltrating society, for example.
Despite 40 years of Atheism, you are stuck in level I.
There is little difference between a Sola Scriptura believer and a level I atheist. They both look for the same thing, but the Atheist has become frustrated.
God is everywhere, you just cannot see it because you cannot IMAGINE. It is like having 'no creativity" or emotions. You don't need to prove God to believe in God. As long as you believe this you will remain a level I atheist. You are stuck with no place to go.
Last edited by Julian658; 02-03-2014 at 11:16 AM..
Jesus knew he built the ark and a world-wide flood destroyed everyone except the eight on the ark as did other writers of the Bible. If you say the Genesis account is wrong then you are telling me Jesus was deceived as well as other writers in the Bible. Sorry, He was not deceived. He spoke the truth on everything He taught. He is the truth.
The point to realise here which often goes over your head is that the obvious conclusions one can draw are.
Jesus was not THE son of god or he would have been fully aware of the contrary evidence to the alleged event.
He was but wise sage with a flat earth POV and believed what was handed down from his forefathers,
Someone put words in his mouth to validate the claims about him as the messiah.
Most scholars go with the number 3.
If there was no mention by Jesus of the flood or his lineage did not trace back via Noah, no one would give a hoot of the Hebrew traditions. Apologists therefore have to somehow do mental gymnastics to still make the flood relevant even if it is a localised flood and/oe partly allegorical. Ending up back at A&E, single pairs cannot propagate an entire species and with diverse cultures and languages and skin tones.
It is the same for Exodus. The only way that works is an appeal to magic.
It is obvious you really need to believe this flood happened but it did not; that would put you at No. 2 and I suppose your faith can survive with that conclusion. It just means you are following a man/sage and not a god.
I don't see where Christ spoke of Job but He did speak about the Ninevites as an historic event which His listeners knew to be historic:
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." Yet He,
answering, said to them, "A generation, wicked and an adulteress, for a sign is seeking, and a sign will not be given to it
except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For even as Jonah was in the bowel of the sea monster three days and three
nights, thus will the Son of Mankind be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. "Men, Ninevites, will be
rising in the judging with this generation and will be condemning it, for they repent at the heralding of Jonah, and lo! more
than Jonah is here! (Mat 12:38-41)
Jesus never said: Like the cute story that no one would believe if they had any sense about Johan being in the bowel of the sea monster three days and three nights, thus also no one should believe I will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
No, He and audience took the Jonah/Ninevite story literally and would take His being entombed literally as well.
Beg pardon, of course I meant Jonah. Well, a lot of people may doubt that Jonah really was in a fish's belly for three days and in fact I find it even less likely that Jonah went preaching to the inhabitants of capital of Assyria (and got them to repent, as I recall). So if Jesus used that as a reference, and that is not believed to be true, then there is no reason why his use of the Flood and Eden should be taken as true, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
When Jesus turned the water into wine, did He use magic? No.
When He multiplied the five cakes of bread and two fish to feed over 5,000 people, did He use magic? No.
It was all done by God's spirit. The same when He raised people from the dead.
Noah didn't need magic to construct the ark. God didn't need magic to bring about a world-wide flood...
In my book, that's just what is being used - magic, or if you prefer, supernatural powers. To use those to make a Flood (and indeed the Ark) float, is 'waving the magic wand', as i call it. And, if you do that, the Ark and flood is not necessary. Indeed, God, unless he is incompetent, ought to have scrapped Adam and begun with Noah.
If of course (as you have been arguing) you try to make it feasible without working miracles, then you don't need God, just as if the Flood was actually a folk - memory of the local Black sea flood.
The point to realise here which often goes over your head is that the obvious conclusions one can draw are.
Jesus was not THE son of god or he would have been fully aware of the contrary evidence to the alleged event.
He was but wise sage with a flat earth POV and believed what was handed down from his forefathers,
Someone put words in his mouth to validate the claims about him as the messiah.
Most scholars go with the number 3.
Please prove MOST scholars believe #3. I need names and quotes. If there are 10,000 scholars in the world, I need to see all the names and what they said above the 50% of all of them.
Quote:
If there was no mention by Jesus of the flood or his lineage did not trace back via Noah, no one would give a hoot of the Hebrew traditions. Apologists therefore have to somehow do mental gymnastics to still make the flood relevant even if it is a localised flood and/oe partly allegorical. Ending up back at A&E, single pairs cannot propagate an entire species and with diverse cultures and languages and skin tones.
Who said it was only single pairs? The bible says 7 pairs of unclean and one pear of clean.
Quote:
It is the same for Exodus. The only way that works is an appeal to magic.
Not really.
Quote:
It is obvious you really need to believe this flood happened but it did not; that would put you at No. 2 and I suppose your faith can survive with that conclusion. It just means you are following a man/sage and not a god.
Geological evidence proves the world-wide flood occurred.
Beg pardon, of course I meant Jonah. Well, a lot of people may doubt that Jonah really was in a fish's belly for three days and in fact I find it even less likely that Jonah went preaching to the inhabitants of capital of Assyria (and got them to repent, as I recall). So if Jesus used that as a reference, and that is not believed to be true, then there is no reason why his use of the Flood and Eden should be taken as true, either.
But Jonah's story is true and Jesus truly was entombed and just as Jonah came out of the sea monster (whatever that was) so Jesus came out of the tomb.
Since the flood story is true, as is Eden, so is the return of Christ true.
Quote:
In my book, that's just what is being used - magic, or if you prefer, supernatural powers. To use those to make a Flood (and indeed the Ark) float, is 'waving the magic wand', as i call it. And, if you do that, the Ark and flood is not necessary. Indeed, God, unless he is incompetent, ought to have scrapped Adam and begun with Noah.
If of course (as you have been arguing) you try to make it feasible without working miracles, then you don't need God, just as if the Flood was actually a folk - memory of the local Black sea flood.
Jesus never used magic. If you say He did you have to prove He did. Do you have His magic top hat and wand and cape?
Like I said before, I never said God used magic to cause the flood or to make the ark float and survive. He could have used supernatural powers. He is God after all and has all power.
You saying the ark and flood is not necessary if He used magic. That's kind of like saying in the New Testament the man born blind should never have been born blind since Jesus healed him of his blindness. But Jesus said he was born blind so that God would be glorified in healing him.
So if God never used magic or miracles to cause the flood or the ark to work then you don't need God? Really? Is that what you really think? Only God knew of an impending world-wide flood. Only God knew the correct dimensions of the ark. Only God knew the correct time to have Noah begin building the ark. I also believe God gave Noah the wisdom as to how to build the ark just as He gave Solomon wisdom to do his masterful deeds.
The black sea flood is the dumbest idea as if that is what sparked the flood of Noah's day historical account. I mean, really? That's like saying aunt Mildred's family died in a flood and that story grew and grew to include the entire world? Really?
Please prove MOST scholars believe #3. I need names and quotes. If there are 10,000 scholars in the world, I need to see all the names and what they said above the 50% of all of them.
Not going to play your silly games, you know well who the real scholars are or at least should know, hint they are not apologists.
Quote:
Who said it was only single pairs? The bible says 7 pairs of unclean and one pear of clean.
Even with 7 pairs, the genetic pool is to shallow.
Quote:
Not really.
Yes really.
Quote:
Geological evidence proves the world-wide flood occurred.
Perhaps in your alternate reality but not in the real world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
