What's your opinion on Noah's flood?

[Eliot]

Do you believe it really happened, or do you think it's just a worthless mumbo-jumbo fairy tale? I believe it really happened. I also think that the flood was what caused the movement of the continents. If you look at a world map, you can see where most of the continents would've connected. It's very interesting.

[Celebthôl]

No i dont believe God flooded the Earth...why should he? an how? where did all the excess water come from? How the heck does one man collect 2 of every animal? :rolleyes:

[e.Blackstar]

Yes, i do believe that God flooded the earth to punish the unrighteous, but saved Noah and his family, and two of every animal.

[Eriol]

My opinion is not among the options in the poll.

I think it is a myth.

*Eriol ducks from Thorin and Elendil*

:D

[Beleg]

*Eriol ducks from Thorin and Elendil*

Throws rotten apples at Eriol! :p

I completely believe in Noah's Arc and the great flooding; although my believe is a bit different from the General Christian belief.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
My opinion is not among the options in the poll.

I think it is a myth.

*Eriol ducks from Thorin and Elendil*

:D
:eek: Not the Flood too! I should have known...:rolleyes: :p

I believe that God did literally flood the world as punishment.

[Celebthôl]

Punishment for what?

[Elendil3119]

The Bible says that
Genesis 6:5-8 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
and
Genesis 6:11-13 11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
So that is why God flooded the world: to destroy mankind and its wickedness.

[Celebthôl]

*sighs*

That makes no sence...:rolleyes:...

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
No i dont believe God flooded the Earth...why should he? an how? where did all the excess water come from? How the heck does one man collect 2 of every animal? :rolleyes:

How did God flood the earth? With rain, that's how. Where did all that rainwater come from? God sent it. Noah didn't collect 2 of every animal. God sent them to Noah.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
*sighs*

That makes no sense...:rolleyes:...

Of course it doesn't..............to an unsaved person............


No offense............

[Celebthôl]

None taken, coz i dont believe all that :rolleyes:

[Anamatar IV]

Well I have a question about this.

I for one don't believe this, I think it's a myth. When God sent two of every animal to Noah, did he even send the ones that weren't discovered, the ones that were only native to the lands that weren't discovered?

That could've left Noah scratching his head...

[Celebthôl]

Zacly, and what did they eat? wood? cant eat each other, and to repopulate, there would be LOADS of incest (sp) going on yuk!

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Eliot
Do you believe it really happened, or do you think it's just a worthless mumbo-jumbo fairy tale? I believe it really happened. I also think that the flood was what caused the movement of the continents. If you look at a world map, you can see where most of the continents would've connected. It's very interesting.
I believe that there was a flood. There's evidence for it in Europe. I don't believe God did it.

See Nat'l Geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/).

However, continental drift is responsible for the movement of the continents. Of course, if you follow the Bible, there isn't enough time for them to drift. But, if you follow science, 1- 2 inches per year easily fits in. I'm sure Snaga will have something to say. He's a plate tectonics geek.

See NASA (http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html). See Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/05/0236239&mode=thread&tid=134) (sorry to the UK folks for the bad news that they'll likely be underwater in a few thousand years).

Finally, can I add an option, 'I believe that the flood occured, but that it was not caused by God'?

[Elendil3119]

Well, it says that God sent two of every animal, so I suppose it would mean *every*. ;)
Zacly, and what did they eat? wood? cant eat each other, and to repopulate, there would be LOADS of incest (sp) going on yuk!
God commanded Noah to lay up provisions for the animals also. BTW incest is not a concern for most animals. :rolleyes:

[Kementari]

I agree with An. Did they have beavers or kuwalas on the arc? Back then they had a very narrow view of the world. I think that there is somekind of proof that there was a flood in the Mid East thousands of years ago ( dont remeber details...), but as for the entire world..i dunno

[Eliot]

Well, like I said, Noah didn't go out and collect them himself. God SENT them. The lands that weren't "discovered" (do you mean the lands that weren't discovered by humans? Because God knows everything) had animals that God, of course, knew everything about, and just sent them to Noah. I bet Noah would've been amazed at some of the animals that were on the Ark. Especially all of the animals that are extinct today. :)


P.S. Do you believe in any religion, Anamatar?

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Elendil3119
God commanded Noah to lay up provisions for the animals also. BTW incest is not a concern for most animals. :rolleyes:

No but it is for humans, how did a few people end up as 6 1/2 billion?

[Elendil3119]

Genesis 6:18 8 "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark-- you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you."
God commanded that Noah also bring along his sons and their wives. 'Back then' there were no laws against marrying cousins, unless I'm mistaken.

[Celebthôl]

Im sorry, but there is no way that i will ever believe that story, there is no way that it would or could ever happen or have happened....:rolleyes:

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Im sorry, but there is no way that i will ever believe that story, there is no way that it would or could ever happen or have happened....:rolleyes:
That's a pretty general statement there. ;) The God of the Bible is omnipotent (all-powerful). Therefore, there is nothing stopping Him from flooding the earth, or anything else. If you stand by your above statement, you either believe that there is not a God, or that He is not all-powerful.

[Celebthôl]

I believe that there is a God, and that he is all powerful, but i do NOT believe that he wanted to kill all humans and stuff coz he thought me had made a mistake, God is perfect and therefore does NOT make mistakes...he also would NOT kill all humans and animals if he wanted them dead, he would snap his fingers and they would just no longer exist :rolleyes: simple Logic here....

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Beorn
Finally, can I add an option, 'I believe that the flood occured, but that it was not caused by God'?

Sure you can. Also, add an option "I believe the flood is just a myth". Because, that's what Eriol, and possibly others, believes.

[Eriol]

Explaining the "myth" statement -- I suppose only the guys following the "Question on the Bible" thread know what I think a "myth" is...

I believe there was a flood. Heck, a lot of floods happen. I believe there was a flood ordained by God -- because if you believe in God, all floods are allowed by God anyway, so it's not much of a stretch.

However, I think that the important part of the Flood myth is the significance of the flood. Disobedience; punishment; a covenant between God and Men. This is the "meat" of the story, and this is clearly true as I see it.

What is not true, and simply poetical exaggeration, in my view, is the statement that all the lands were covered, and that all the animals were in Noah's ark. Note how these questions are secondary to the myth's significance -- who cares whether the Everest was submerged? Who cares whether there were Koalas in the Ark? It's nit-picking.

The main point of the story is the covenant between God and Men. And in this I most assuredly believe.

So, you see that there is a difference between "NO, I don't believe in the Flood, I think it's stupid" and "I think it's a myth"... my own belief is that the Flood story (as everything in the Bible) can teach us a lot about ourselves.

A myth is not a lie (I should really put this in my signature).

[Thorin]

Ah, I should have known it wouldn't take long before Eriol sank his heretic mud-hooks into the Flood. :)

The real question is not whether there was a flood or not, but do you trust the Bible? If you trust the Bible you need to be taking it at its word because 1) we dont' know any better 2) We have always assumed that God gave direct inspiration and revelation to Moses when He wrote the Pentateuch (and yes, Eriol and Malbeth, that includes special creation;) )

If we start to question the meat of what was written there, we begin to deny the validity or sacredness of the Scriptures. When we begin to to that, we have basically done away with the heart and substance of Judaism and Christianity. There are some people who call themselves Christians that have done away with Christ miracles, all the supernatural events of the bible and Christ's divinity....:confused: There is a word for those kind of people. Its called pagans.

And just to answer the question of where the water came from? Notice in the account of the flood that it says, "the waters of the deep". The earth had inner lakes and geysers within its core, never mind the oceans and seas. The catastrophic nature of the flood created earthquakes, volcanos and all other kinds of natural disasters. This wasn't a gentle rainfall. Before the flood the atmosphere was much thicker (hence the reason why things were so big and life was longer). The amount of moisture contained in the atmosphere was much more than we have now. It all let loose. Floods came from oceans overflowing. It rained and flooded like this for 40 days and nights straight. If a day of river flooding can sink a whole town, can you imagine this flood?

[Eliot]

Well said Thorin, thank you. :)

[Eriol]

I don't want to turn this thread into "Question on the Bible - Part II" :D. It's not a big deal for me. I can certainly accept that God could have flooded the entire earth, and submerged even the Everest; and that He could have summoned every animal on the face of the Earth, including Koalas.

I just think He didn't ;).

And I don't think the text of Genesis forces that intepretation, seeing as it is written in "the style of a popular poet", in the words of the greatest biblical scholar ever, St. Jerome. A popular poet exaggerates. No big deal.

Unfortunately, Thorin, the processes you described in the Flooding of the Earth would have left big marks throughout the world -- and there are none. God could have "hidden" it, when he cleared the waters, of course...

But I think He didn't. Why? Because the size and scope of the flood is irrelevant to the story. Disobedience; punishment; covenant. That is the story.

[Feanorian]

I do not see how mankind survived if there was a flood and there was no Noah. Since there is obivous proof that more then likely the continents were once connected and there is physcial proof of a very large flood. What happened to mankind if there was no Noah? What happened to the animal kingdom if there was no flood? A flood without Noah would most likely kill everyone.

[Talierin]

I think it happened, as I believe in the creation account too.

There are a bazillion marks on the earth from it... just look at the Grand Canyon, the Mid Atlantic Ridge, fossils, continental drift, even the layers of rock, they all could have been caused by the Flood.

And as for the animals, I'm gonna say there would have been less kinds than there are. For example, I think that in the beginning that there was only one kind of cat (and dog, and horse, and so on and so forth) and that as the cat population grew they went off into their seperate "herds" and individual characteristics showed up and that's how we got all the kinds of cats we have nowadays. So therefore Noah would have only needed to take two cats that were similar to the original pair of cats, instead of a bunch of housecats, lions, tigers, etc. He also could have taken smaller animals, or not full grown ones. Another thing, the ark was the size of 368 train boxcars, plenty of room for tons of animals, prolly more room than they even needed

[HLGStrider]

I went through a short period of time of wanting to be a geologist because I saw great proofs in geology for a flood of this magnitude and I found it extremely interesting. . .It was right before me wanting to be a palentologist and after wanting to be a veterenarian. . .or was it before wanting to be a farmer and after wanting to be a. . .where was I?

Beorn:

There are two distinct views for looking at the seperation of the contininents, the forming of the Grand Canyon or Columbia Gorge, the area around Mt. St. Helens, or any geological formation.
The first is the one you are using and I forget what it is officially called but it goes under the principle that everything that is occurring today always occured at a similar speed if not the same or slower speed.
the second is Catostrophism (I'm spelling that wrong. .. Take the word catastrophy and give it an ism) which says that these things were formed quickly by things like the flood, volcanic activity (which was a major part of the flood), etc.

If you believe in evolution you have to believe in the first (with a few exceptions, a few things were obviously done by catastrophies) because of the HUGE amount of time needed for even theistic evolution to occur. If you don't need evolution you don't need the time and things can move a lot quicker.

For instance, the Grand Canyon and Columbia River Gorge were formed either by:
A. The river slowly cutting away at rock over thousands of years
B. Large rush of water all at once.

One takes a lot longer. Both could do it. . .

Actually, it wasn't exactly a large rush.

After the flood there were at least two large inland seas/lakes in the midland of what is now the USA. Science acknowledges these though most scientists won't give it the after the flood.

These were held by a dam like structure over two areas. When the dam broke it started a HUGE waterfall.

Now if you examine Niagra falls you will find that it is slowly eating backwards at a very astounding rate. . .a foot a year at one time. Imagine that about two hundred times multiplied. It would've taken about ten years to carve out the grand canyon (A large canyon was also carved out by the St. Helens volcanic activity).

This is not some crack pot theory but a reasonable scientific one thought up by real geologists. . .The Columbia River gorge, in my own personal opinion (I have not read any thing on it) looks more like a rush of water than something cut back over the years.

There is a very interesting Indian story about the Columbia river gorge. It says that the river was once a great lake and that two sisters used it to hoard all the salmon. Cyotee tricked them, turned them into birds, and let the river and and salmon loose, creating the gorge.

Again, you can look on this as just a legend or you can look on this as the Indian's interpetation of events they actually saw but were so amazing that they needed a legend to explain them (Similar to how they have a story about when the Mt. blew up creating Cratar lake involving mountains at war).

Most of our mountains were under water at some point.

All the fossils around the world were buried in sediment VERY quickly which would've needed floods or a Flood.



Two other issues:

Moving plates would've been excelerated during the flood which would've included massive seismic activity (something about the waters of the deep being opened. . .the world was literally spliting apart).

The water was also supplied by a canopy of water about the earth. There was, according to the Bible, no rain whatsoever on the face of the earth before the flood. Water came up from the ground to water the earth. Afterwards there was. The canopy is quite feasible and would explain the longer life spans of people before the flood (when combined with perfect genetics left over from creation). . .no solar radiation.

Also, the population arguement is currently very popular with creation scientists as proof that humans couldn't have been formed as long ago as evolutionists claim or else there would be more people. I don't have the stats, but I know it is used as an argument in favor, so if it is also being used as an arguement against it sort of has negative value.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
All the fossils around the world were buried in sediment VERY quickly which would've needed floods or a Flood.


This must have been the largest Elgee post I've ever seen...

Floods or "A Flood". That is clearly correct. There is no denying that floods are a natural result of natural causes, and happen with some frequency. And I don't think there is any reason to deny that a huge, catastrophic flood happened -- or could have happened, at least -- in the Middle-East. There is an hypothesis that links the Genesis flood to the breaching of Gibraltar strait and the flooding of the Mediterranean Sea! Imagine that! That's a huge flood!

(There are some indications that the Mediterranean sea was cut off from the Atlantic once and became much smaller in size, like the Caspian sea -- take a look at a map to see the MAGNITUDE of what I'm talking about).

This could clearly be considered by the people involved as a flood that submerged the whole earth.

However, it would be a stretch to really believe in a flood that covered ALL the lands in 40 days. A stretch means, against the evidence. Let's see why.

The two scientific principles in confrontation are Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism. Elgee explained them in their post. But science is not bound to any of them, and can explain any phenomenon according to one or the other. To say that "Science is Uniformitarian (or Catastrophic)" is to go back to the 18th century when these two principles were really fighting each other. Nowadays both are accepted as possible.

Two examples of scientific "catastrophism": The meteor strike that allegedly dealt the death blow to the dinosaurs; and the Columbia River Gorge itself!

(Did you know that, Elgee?).

Both are instances of a phenomenon explained by science in a catastrophic way. Why? Because the evidence points in that direction. (I'm not a geologist, so I can't explain it in detail -- I can explain the meteor strike, but not the catastrophic floods that formed the Columbia River Gorge. It has something to do with a glacier from the Ice Age melting, I think.).

But some things simply can't be done in a catastrophic way. Take the continental drift, for instance (where is snaga when we need him? :) ). There is NO WAY that a land mass the size of America can be pushed around in 40 days. It would tear the Earth apart -- it needs a power much bigger than the combined atomic weapons of USA and USSR.

Could God have done it? Sure -- and he could have done it without leaving a trace, too. He would simply break His rules. No big deal.

But there is no need to believe he would break his natural rules in order to believe and learn from the story of the Flood. It may be a weird idea of mine, but I think God likes His rules -- He does not relish breaking them.

So there is no need to submerge the Everest, bring Koalas from Australia, and give America this big push if He can send the important message -- disobedience, punishment, covenant -- without it.

I'd also think that the flooding of the Mediterranean is catastrophic enough.

As an aside -- fossils are laid in MANY sedimentary layers, which imply many floods. Which is to be expected.

[Celebthôl]

The whole thing is just non-sence IMHO

All the trees and plants would be destoyed, the boat would have to be miles high and the the air would be so thin, they would bearely be able to survive, there would NOT be enough food to last for 40 days and 40 nights, even on the biggest ships today it would not be possible to support all those animals, and Noah surely had friends that he wouldnt want to die, so why not bring them along? No one has a heart od stone like that, and again there was 3 sons if i remember rightly, so 4 couples altogether, there is no possible way you can get 6 1/2 billion people from that in such a short time...its all folly

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
The whole thing is just non-sence IMHO

All the trees and plants would be destoyed, the boat would have to be miles high and the the air would be so thin, they would bearely be able to survive, there would NOT be enough food to last for 40 days and 40 nights, even on the biggest ships today it would not be possible to support all those animals, and Noah surely had friends that he wouldnt want to die, so why not bring them along? No one has a heart od stone like that, and again there was 3 sons if i remember rightly, so 4 couples altogether, there is no possible way you can get 6 1/2 billion people from that in such a short time...its all folly
Actually, just to add to your incredulity, it rained for 40 days and nights, but the ark was on the "bosom of the deep" for 1 year. :) Hey, if Christ can feed 5000 people with two fish and 5 loaves of bread, God can sustain them.

And obviously you've never tried to multiply anything exponentially. Did you try the double the pennies every day for a month and see how man cents you get? Try it, you'll be very surprised. Now make those 30 days, only 30 years. Now also keep in mind that these guys were living over 300 years old. Now take into account that many had more than one wife, so one guy could be impregnating 4 to 5 women at a time.

Someone can help me out with some facts, but isn't it said that only 100 years ago we were only at around 2 billion people? Or what if it were even 500 years ago? Even to grow 4 billion people in 500 years is pretty darn quick. What about the other 3500 years before? But I'm pretty sure it was alot less than that that we were only at 2 billion. It would start slow, but believe me, it would skyrocket later. 4000 years growing exponentially is more than enough time to create 6.5 billion people.

[Eriol]

I agree. The populational argument against the flood is very weak. We could -- easily -- reach a trillion people in the period if there were enough room and food for everybody.

This is a part of "the evidence" I'm talking about, found after a quick google:

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]


Again -- God could certainly deal with all that. I just don't see why he would do it. And I think that a massive flood, but one localized in the Middle-East, would be described just as the biblical flood by the people involved.

[Celebthôl]

Okay....so your telling me that there were only 8 people on the entire planet?! i dont care who tells me that God or anyone else, thats plain silly...
They had the age of over 300? :confused: heh ok...

But once you get a high population its easier, but from 8 to so many is rediculous

[Eriol]

It's not ridiculous, Thôl -- it's math :D. Do it yourself. Let's figure it out with a 40-year average span (maximum age is absolutely non-important here, the important parameters are maturity age -- give it 20; and pregnancy length, which is fixed). In fact, a great life span works AGAINST the increase.

Do it with these VERY conservative estimates, and you'll see that you get to MUCH, MUCH more than A TRILLION in 4000 years.

One pregnancy every 2 years for 20 years (maximum age minus maturity age), means 10 pregnancies per woman. There are miscarriages, but there are also twins, so let's cancel each other.

One woman then puts 10 persons in the world.

this means that the population is 5 times bigger (10/woman = 5/person) at each generation (20 years).

so the math is:

8 x 5 EXP 200

8 = initial population
5 = growth rate
200 = number of generations

Do it on any computer. The result is approximately a 5 followed by 171 zeros!!!

Just to give you an idea of what that means, a Trillion is 1 followed by 12 zeros. As you can see, we can be MUCH more conservative, and even give a replacement rate of only 2 (one person puts 2 other persons in the world), and the results would not be too different. (with a replacement rate of 2, the final number has "only" 91 zeros).

[Thorin]

Eriol and others,

I don't know if you've heard of Dr. Walter Veith, a zoologist from the University of Cape Town, South Africa? He is a former evolutionist, pro-creationist and has some very good insights. I recommend that you find out more of his material. Here is a brief interview with him from Creation magazine

www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4188cen_d1999.asp

I believe that this is his organizational website. You can post questions here and he will answer them.

www.amazingdiscoveries.org/walter.html

[Celebthôl]

well for staters there would be 4 not 8, 1 person cant make a baby on its own :rolleyes: :D

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
well for staters there would be 4 not 8, 1 person cant make a baby on its own :rolleyes: :D

Read it carefully Thôl. 8 people equals 4 women; 4 women make 40 persons; so it is 5 persons/person. It's just a way to simplify the math.

This is the part that addresses your point:

this means that the population is 5 times bigger (10/woman = 5/person) at each generation (20 years).

[Celebthôl]

Ok that aside (soz by the way):

What about feeding all those animals and what about the trees etc?

[Eriol]

Oh, then you'd have to ask someone else, as I don't think the flood covered all the lands.

[HLGStrider]

The forage on the arc probably would've been sufficient to keep them for some time afterwards. I always believed Noah brought plants along with him on the arc, but I can't remember if this is Biblical or stems from a Noah's arc picture book I had when I was a kid that shows him planting fruit trees. . .

There would be no need to bring Koalas from Austrailia if Koalas hadn't moved to Austraila yet.

Even the flood Eriol is describing, however, would have the same problem with the food, Cel. . .

I don't claim all geological formations happened during the flood. Several mountain chains were done during that time. Some were probably originally shorter. Not all were however.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Even the flood Eriol is describing, however, would have the same problem with the food, Cel. . .

What do you mean?

[HLGStrider]

Eriol's flood still would wipe out the entire Middle East which they landed right smack in the middle of, so therefore the animals would've had to walk a long way to find food outside of its destruction. . .so the food problem would still remain.

[Celebthôl]

Ah ok :) zacly so i was right, YAY im right for once...okay im scared now...im never right :confused:

[HLGStrider]

You're right that it would've been a problem, but it would be an easily compensated for one.

Noah probably brought along seedlings and even one or two year old trees to plant afterwards. He also would've brought enough food to keep those animals alive for a year which would've been all the time need for things to start growing back. . .

[Celebthôl]

OK, this all comes down to, how the heck big was this boat of his? as i have said, even the biggest tanker today wouldnr be ablr do the job...

[Talierin]

If I remember right, about 368 train boxcars in square feet, 2 1/2 football fields long, three stories high... it was a HUGE boat. Actually, I wouldn't call it a boat, it was probably more like a big square box/barge with a row of windows along the top.

[Aerin]

*cough* A boat is a craft that can be loaded onto another. A ship cannot be loaded. It would have been a ship. ;) *cough*

[Celebthôl]

Got a bad cough there huh ;)

[Lúthien Séregon]

And as for the animals, I'm gonna say there would have been less kinds than there are. For example, I think that in the beginning that there was only one kind of cat (and dog, and horse, and so on and so forth) and that as the cat population grew they went off into their seperate "herds" and individual characteristics showed up and that's how we got all the kinds of cats we have nowadays. So therefore Noah would have only needed to take two cats that were similar to the original pair of cats, instead of a bunch of housecats, lions, tigers, etc.

Well, it's been scientifically proven ( fossil evidence, etc ) that all cats have evolved from a group of mammals called the miacids ( in fact, all carnivores have evolved from this creature ). The first type of cat was called Proailurus, which probably appeared around 25 million years ago in Eurasia. The cat line of evolution eventually branched out into the two groups of the Sabre-toothed cats ( which included smilodon ) and the group that was eventually to evolve into the modern cats we know today. The sabre-toothed lineage died out millions of years ago. The modern cat evolutionary line is thought to have formed the family we know today as the family of Felidae, and as the Felinae, Pantherinae, and Acinonychinae subfamilies. I think that's a far cry from two cats that evolved into all cats, especially considering that all 7 lines of carnivores evolved from the same group of mammals...

I don't really "believe" in anything Bible-related or even specifically religious...I like to keep my views open to other ideas, rather than being fixed on one belief.

[Idril]

I found this excellent article on the subject from the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University.

I especially love the last paragragh - what do your think: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~cmf/evolution/claim4.html

[Celebthôl]

THANK YOU (i only read the last paragraph :rolleyes: )

But i said that already, its all...stories :rolleyes:

[Lúthien Séregon]

That's a good article, I agree with it entirely. There's just no way that the Noah's Ark story could ever have been realistically possible, even with "God's help".

[Eriol]

And yet, the main points -- disobedience, punishment, covenant -- are so clearly possible. And they are, after all, the MAIN points.

I know that some people think that a myth is a lie, and that when I say that Genesis (including the Flood) is a myth, they assume I am saying it is a lie or "just a story".

It is astounding that in a Tolkien Forum, of all places, this misunderstanding of the nature of myth should be so widespread.

Read what Tolkien had to say about myths, guys!

The Flood is a VERY important myth, as everything in the Genesis. And it was almost certainly based on a real event. Bickering about the subspecies of insects won't change that.

[Idril]

How about this then: it's from K. Matthews an archaeologist - don't know who he is but - he had a nice piece on his website -

The origins of the flood story
The stories surrounding the Sumerian hero Gilgamesh include a Flood legend so like the one in Genesis (even with a Noah character, Ziusudra), that it is obviously the source for much of the Noah story. In the Assyrian Epic of Gilgamesh proper, the survivor of the flood is called Utnapishtim. There is also an Old Babylonian poem that mentions a universal flood, this time with a hero called Atrahasis. Most Biblical scholars (with the exception of Christian fundamentalists) agree that the ancient Hebrews adopted a flood story into their mythology at some point during a period of close contact with Mesopotamia, perhaps during the Exile or perhaps much earlier, in view of the differences between it and the Babylonian version.

One of the investigators in the 1980s, David Fasold, quickly recognised that the feature at Doðubayazit (Turkey) is not Noah’s Ark, but an entirely natural, geological formation. However, as an interesting corollary, he suggested that it may well have been the very shape of the site that encouraged ancient populations to think of it as a ship and to invent the story of a Deluge to account for its presence 2,000 metres up a mountainside.

[Eriol]

You know, Idril, this only reinforces my view... if a myth is found in many cultures chances are it is a true myth, and not "just a story". For there are stories that are "just stories", as well as stories that are true myths, i.e., that tell us something important about ourselves.

Estrella pointed out in another thread how Prometheus bringing the fire from Heaven is similar to Satan offering the forbidden fruit. And it is the same principle at work, again -- if more than one culture has a myth saying the same thing, chances are we ought to listen.

By the way, there are Flood myths among the Aztecs, Mayans, among the Brazilian Indians... I don't know about Far Asia, but I wouldn't doubt it.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
You know, Idril, this only reinforces my view... if a myth is found in many cultures chances are it is a true myth, and not "just a story". For there are stories that are "just stories", as well as stories that are true myths, i.e., that tell us something important about ourselves.

But just because they are found in many places, it doesnt mean they are true, in every religion there is a Devil, yet i know for a fact that there isnt! Just because it is said by many people doesnt mean it is true...

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
But i said that already, its all...stories :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, I forgot that you showed me the proof. Sorry, I forgot that you presented solid evidence that it didn't happen. Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
There's just no way that the Noah's Ark story could ever have been realistically possible, even with "God's help".

You obviously have no idea how powerful God is. Oh well, you'll eventually find out.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eliot
You obviously have no idea how powerful God is. Oh well, you'll eventually find out.

You obviously dont if you think he would do that and not just click his fingers the easy way :rolleyes: . Did you not read Idril's link?

[Talierin]

That article has a few problems with it... for one, they're assuming the ark was boat-shaped, when in reality it would have worked fine in a box shape. Someone did tests on this once, and they found that a box shape would have been more stable in the rough floodwater seas than a *boat*. EDIT: found an article on that test: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_ArkSafety.asp
Also, they're assuming that all the animals were full grown. There's no reason why Noah had to have full grown animals on there... he could have taken half grown ones, or smaller full grown animals. And I'm still sticking to my two cats thing... for one, I don't see the fossil evidence that cats evolved from rodents or whatever, or any other modern animals from rodents.
Furthermore, Noah probably didn't take insects either. Here's an article on all this from a creationist standpoint:

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp

Another thing about the article Idril posted - why do they always seem to assume that the world was the way it is now, when in fact it probably wasn't? The continents would have been closer together than they are now, (i.e. easier for any remote kinds of animals to make it to the local of the ark), and the seas were shallower, and mountains not so high. You CANNOT make assumptions about the ark based on today's world, you HAVE to take into account the world back then!

[Annushka]

Originally posted by Eriol
The Flood is a VERY important myth, as everything in the Genesis. And it was almost certainly based on a real event. Bickering about the subspecies of insects won't change that.

That`s exactly what I think. Of course there was a flood. A really big one apparently. And it wasn`t caused by god. Like many other thing it has its reflection in the Genesis.

[Celebthôl]

OK before we all start to kill each other:

Lets start over...

Why should God want to kill then entire planet in such a stupid way anyway?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Talierin
Another thing about the article Idril posted - why do they always seem to assume that the world was the way it is now, when in fact it probably wasn't? The continents would have been closer together than they are now, (i.e. easier for any remote kinds of animals to make it to the local of the ark), and the seas were shallower, and mountains not so high. You CANNOT make assumptions about the ark based on today's world, you HAVE to take into account the world back then!

And this is the old quarrel about Uniformitarianism. Sure you can postulate that the Earth was different. But we do not know of any natural force that could move the continents in 6000 years, nor raise mountains, deepen seas...

So to assume that the Earth was so different, just a while ago (6000 years), is to assume that God directed the show with a lot of miracles.

Not impossible. But also not needed.

I think that adamant defense of a literal Genesis is not only not needed, but also alienates a lot of prospective Christians :(

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
You obviously dont if you think he would do that and not just click his fingers the easy way :rolleyes: . Did you not read Idril's link?

If you knew anything about God or the Bible (which you very obviously DON'T), you'd know that God works in very different ways from man's thinking. I'm not sure if you can comprehend that or not.

[Celebthôl]

I DO a lot better than anyone i have met so far...(even though you wont agree with me)

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Did you not read Idril's link?

Of course I did. Did you? Oh, silly me, of course you didn't. You said so yourself. Sorry, my mistake. I forgot that you only read the last paragraph. Please forgive me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Celebthôl]

LMAO calm down, this is like the dumbest thing ever and i cant even believe you people actually believe it happened :rolleyes:

[Elendil3119]

I think we all need to calm down a bit. It's pointless for either side to insult the other; that gets the discussion nowhere.

[Celebthôl]

I tryed to keep it calmed, but he comes at me yellin :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to the question, why would God want to flood out the world and kill all the people on it?

[Eriol]

Disobedience - Punishment - Covenant.

Study these words, Thôl, and you'll know why God did it.

I know you are quite intimate with God, but study them nonetheless.

[Celebthôl]

What are they being disobedient towards?

[Talierin]

Originally posted by Eriol
But we do not know of any natural force that could move the continents in 6000 years, nor raise mountains, deepen seas...

Yes, we do. A worldwide flood could have done it. Water is an awesome force.

So to assume that the Earth was so different, just a while ago (6000 years), is to assume that God directed the show with a lot of miracles.

Not nessecarily, if you *really* looked at the forces involved, natural forces could have 'remodelled' the earth, so to speak, in a very short time, with only a little nudge from God to get it all started.

I think that adamant defense of a literal Genesis is not only not needed, but also alienates a lot of prospective Christians :(

Perhaps, but I would rather believe that it is true and stand up for it, than go against it. It's not really all that unplausible either, I've read A LOT of scientific literature on it and most of it makes more sense to me than the claims against it.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
What are they being disobedient towards?
They had become wicked and disobedient towards God: deserving of death. I believe I quoted the relevent portion of Genesis somewhere on the first page...

Eriol, since you don't believe that the Flood actually happened, what do you offer in its place?

[Eriol]

Well, with your last sentence I agree, Tal. We should stand up for what we believe -- that's what we are all doing, after all.

But I assure you that water could NOT push the continents around. It couldn't come even close. Ask snaga, our resident plate tectonics geek, to know how much power is needed to push them around a few inches per year nowadays.

EDIT: Elendil, I never said I did not believe in "a Flood". Read my posts. I don't believe in a Global Flood, that's different.

[Celebthôl]

How can you be disobedient towards God?

He doesnt care what you do, hence the FREE WILL, if he wanted you to be all good then he would have made you so, the only plausable answer is that he doesnt care what we do, we will all get to him, its just a matter of time, ad if we are bad along the way, we will NOT go to hell we will just restart (im not going into anymore detail i already have a thread on it elsewhere)...surficed to say, he never cared that we were "disobedient" and so therefore he never made some flood to kill all humanity thats just silly...

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
But I assure you that water could NOT push the continents around. It couldn't come even close. Ask snaga, our resident plate tectonics geek, to know how much power is needed to push them around a few inches per year nowadays.

Your right water doesnt, they are moved by lava pushing them appart at the seems, they either move together appat or side by side, depending on where the main seem is...

[Talierin]

I'll post an excerpt out of a book on how I think the flood worked (and how it moved the continents) in a bit, it'll take me awhile to type it up...

How can you be disobedient towards God?

He doesnt care what you do, hence the FREE WILL, if he wanted you to be all good then he would have made you so, the only plausable answer is that he doesnt care what we do, we will all get to him, its just a matter of time, ad if we are bad along the way, we will NOT go to hell we will just restart (im not going into anymore detail i already have a thread on it elsewhere)...surficed to say, he never cared that we were "disobedient" and so therefore he never made some flood to kill all humanity thats just silly..

You have the whole concept of free will wrong, Thol. God gave us free will precisly because he DOES care about us. God wants us to love him, right? Well, what would be the point if He MADE us love him? Forced love isn't love at all. So He gave us the free will to CHOOSE if we will love Him or not. But free will also comes at a high cost, that we may (and often do) choose not to love him, and go against His will. But like any loving father, sometimes He has to punish his children when they are really horribly bad, because otherwise they will never grown up properly.

[Anamatar IV]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
How can you be disobedient towards God?

He doesnt care what you do, hence the FREE WILL, if he wanted you to be all good then he would have made you so, the only plausable answer is that he doesnt care what we do, we will all get to him, its just a matter of time, ad if we are bad along the way, we will NOT go to hell we will just restart (im not going into anymore detail i already have a thread on it elsewhere)...surficed to say, he never cared that we were "disobedient" and so therefore he never made some flood to kill all humanity thats just silly...

If God did not care what you do, then Christians would not believe and follow the Ten Commandments. Muslims would not follow the Five Pillars of Islam. Hindus and Buddhists would not believe in Karma. In every major religion, the God or gods has a set of laws or guidelines that will affect the afterlife for you.

Actually, Thol, in the Christian religion, you're right, if you're bad you won't go to Hell. You'll go to Hell if you're not an Elect.:D

Only in the Jewish religion is there no afterlife. The two religions that believe in rebirth after death don't believe in Noah's Ark.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
But I assure you that water could NOT push the continents around. It couldn't come even close. Ask snaga, our resident plate tectonics geek, to know how much power is needed to push them around a few inches per year nowadays.
Ahem, God can do anything. ;)
EDIT: Elendil, I never said I did not believe in "a Flood". Read my posts. I don't believe in a Global Flood, that's different.
So what exactly do you believe in? Was the whole human race destroyed? Besides Noah...
He doesnt care what you do, hence the FREE WILL, if he wanted you to be all good then he would have made you so, the only plausable answer is that he doesnt care what we do, we will all get to him, its just a matter of time, ad if we are bad along the way, we will NOT go to hell we will just restart (im not going into anymore detail i already have a thread on it elsewhere)...surficed to say, he never cared that we were "disobedient" and so therefore he never made some flood to kill all humanity thats just silly...
That may be the God you believe in, but that's certainly not the Chrsitian God of the Bible. Remember, we're talking about an event recorded in the Bible, so that necessitates talking about the God of the Bible, and not some other god.

[Celebthôl]

Well if you havent yet noticed :rolleyes: (kinda hard not to), i hate Christianity...but i have been asked to leave this thread, so Grrr, i cant stay and challenge you guys :(

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Well if you havent yet noticed :rolleyes: (kinda hard not to), i hate Christianity...but i have been asked to leave this thread, so Grrr, i cant stay and challenge you guys :(

:confused:

Ahem, God can do anything.

Elendil, are you making a point of not reading my posts today?

:D

I never said that God could not do it. I only said that it required a miracle (or a series of miracles).

I believe that a flood, ordained by God, killed a lot of people. I believe that a remnant later made a covenant with God. I believe that this remnant, being forewarned by God, took a LOT of animals into an Ark.

I don't know if Australians or South Americans had their own floods, simultaneously, or different floods. But they had some similar experience, since they have similar myths, obviously designed around a similar story.

And I think this agrees with the text of Genesis.

[Elendil3119]

Well, God can also perform amazing miracles. :D Remember, He did make the Sun stand still...

Why is it so hard to interpret the Flood account in Genesis literally? Maybe because if you interpreted it literally, evolution would have to be false? By the way, your theory sounds a lot like the Flood story in Genesis...coincidence? ;)

[Eliot]

Hey Thôl, sorry if I offended you. My bad mood has passed. :) Please forgive me for anything that I said that would've flared you up. I feel bad about it now. I just get pretty angry when people start saying that God doesn't have the power to do something. Your beliefs are yours, you can keep them if you want.

By the way, who's asking you to leave the thread?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Elendil3119
Well, God can also perform amazing miracles. :D Remember, He did make the Sun stand still...

Why is it so hard to interpret the Flood account in Genesis literally? Maybe because if you interpreted it literally, evolution would have to be false? By the way, your theory sounds a lot like the Flood story in Genesis...coincidence? ;)

Perhaps because I believe in every word of Genesis :D, as well as every other word in the Bible...

And what is the relation between evolution and the Flood?

:confused:

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eliot
Hey Thôl, sorry if I offended you. My bad mood has passed. :) Please forgive me for anything that I said that would've flared you up. I feel bad about it now. I just get pretty angry when people start saying that God doesn't have the power to do something. Your beliefs are yours, you can keep them if you want.

By the way, who's asking you to leave the thread?

Yeah its kewl, you didnt offend me (as such), i know God is all powerful, but in my teachings he will not under any cercumsances (sp) interfier with the world or say cause floods andwipe us all out for some reason is all.

I also appologise, i probibly helped fuel your bad mood, sorry :(

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
I also appologise, i probibly helped fuel your bad mood, sorry :(

That's OK, I forgive you. :) :D

[Celebthôl]

Thank you :)

Now lets go have words with this Brat and his Kris mate :rolleyes: :D

[HLGStrider]

Actually, Anamatar, the Ten Commandments have VERY little to do with how Christians get to Heaven (can't comment on Islam. You can ask Beleg about that).

The Ten Commandments and every other old Testament law were designed to drive men to God.

The Fall of man was men trying to become like God rather than live in harmony with Him, to show God they didn't need him and could do it on their own. That was the sin in that rebelion.

After that man was a sinful creature as opposed to the perfect creature God desired to make of him. Now God had a choice. What was he to do with these imperfect humans he made to be perfect?

God could
A. Destroy them and start again.
B. Try to ignore it and let them go on being terribly imperfect which would've brought him no end of agony (God hates sin and cannot abide it, even if he loves the sinner. Having sinners near him would be pretty annoying).
C. Sacrifice His son to bring them back to perfection. . .if they choose to come back.

First, however, as man was in rebellion, God had to prove to the entire race that they needed him, prepare the stage for when his son was to come on, etc.

He did this by giving us a set of rules that seems so simple. . .ten commandments.

Now, the thing about these commandments is they are very common sense. They look very easy to follow. For the most part most people, even atheists, would like to follow the 10 commandments because they are good ideas. The world is a better place when people do not kill each other, continually lie, steal, or commit adultry. God made good rules. . .But how many of us have never lied or dishonored our parents? How many of us have not commited adultry in our heart or murder in our hearts?

So we keep on breaking these ten very easy rules. Over and over again. . .

Even if we could keep them we are still soiled by Adam's original mistake, so we are still imperfect, and God's design for us has us to be PERFECT!

So when we've tried and failed, God says, "Here you go, try my way."
And by very simply accepting the gift he gave us in his son, we can put his son, a bit of perfection, in ourselves, and become perfect.

If humans, as they are now, were allowed into the after life, a world where I imagine there will be no restraint, there would be a very chaotic and not very heavenly afterlife. God would have to move. :rolleyes:

However, now it will be filled with those who have become perfect. . .

[HLGStrider]

), i know God is all powerful, but in my teachings he will not under any cercumsances (sp) interfier with the world or say cause floods andwipe us all out for some reason is all.

Ah, the church of Cel! Where do you teach? ;)

I hope Luthien's thing about Cat evolution is better back than that poor evolutionary horse who turned out to be a rock rabbit. . .poor dear. Thought it was a horse, all those experts were telling it it was a horse, and it was so happy to be a horse. . .then it was a rock rabbit. . .imagine that blow to its self-esteem.

[Lúthien Séregon]

I hope Luthien's thing about Cat evolution is better back than that poor evolutionary horse who turned out to be a rock rabbit.

http://www.lioncrusher.com/family.asp?family=Felidae

Perfectly reliable! :D

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Talierin
You have the whole concept of free will wrong, Thol. God gave us free will precisly because he DOES care about us. God wants us to love him, right? Well, what would be the point if He MADE us love him? Forced love isn't love at all. So He gave us the free will to CHOOSE if we will love Him or not. But free will also comes at a high cost, that we may (and often do) choose not to love him, and go against His will. But like any loving father, sometimes He has to punish his children when they are really horribly bad, because otherwise they will never grown up properly.

Best Quote i ever found on free will

"There is no free will if to exercise it in certain ways produces punishment. That makes a mockery of free will and renders it counterfeit."

That is the real truth.

[Celebthôl]

~Elgee~

Whether we follow the 10 commandments or not means abosloutly nothing, they were a "thing" made up by men to control men, and it doesnt even work, you think that if God made up something that he really wanted us to follow that we could break it?

Well we are God so therefore we dont have to try to be like him, God is everything including humans, therefore we are God.

God did NOT sacrifice Jesus to get the out some it did get, he didnt even want Jesus to get sacrificed in the first place.

We dont "need" God at all, he has never and will never interfier as i have told you before, he is leaving us to our own devices, and no matter what we do say or anything, he will never EVER interfier.

There is no way in Heaven, Earth or Hell (if it existed :rolleyes: ) that i am going to be branded a sinner because of some yuppy ate some apple which condemned us forever screw that for a God!

Elgee, when we die, we arent like we are now (trapped in a human body), we experience all emoitions in their truest forms, i.e. pure love, we will also gain total knowledge, we will no longer care for big houses, families, sex, it is all irellivant when we die as they are only earthly things.

It will be filled with even the most imperfect of us, i.e. the rapists and the murderers, God loves them and us all the same we are God as i have said, there is no Hell no Devil, no evil, there is only choise.

Why should any God at all want to force us to do things we dont like by saying we will go to Hell if we dont follow him!? As i already said in that quote, its pointless and counterfeits it, we dont have to "work" to get to God or scrape by, we are already with GOd, we just have to sit back and enjoy the ride (to put it lightly).

~Thôl~

(Elgee, i dont go to church ;) :p)

[Lifeling]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Best Quote i ever found on free will

"There is no free will if to exercise it in certain ways produces punishment. That makes a mockery of free will and renders it counterfeit."

That is the real truth.
((This argument I find rather funny... God is God whether you have a bunch of reasons he's not or not... It's like saying to someone who has a gun to your head, "You cant possibly have that gun because its illegal for you to have it". No. God is God, whether you think he does a good job of it or not.))


I would say yes and no to your post... God's punishment is not just like a stick out of the sky or whatever... The punishment recieved by those who are nonbelievers is not Gods direct hand of punishment... Rather it is merely the consequences of their actions... you reap what you sow... sin has consequences because sin seperates us from God and God is the source of life... so when we sin it drives us away from God and away from the full abundant life. so another way to restate that is, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Everytime you sin, there will be consequences. (try sticking your hand in a fire)... So God does not punish nonbelievers, they punish themselves.

(I believe it is different for those who have accepted Christ)

[Celebthôl]

Well there is no such thing as sin for one, we do what we want and God just keeps on smiling and enjoys every minute of it basically, we will all end up with him, its just a matter of time.

I dont know where this so called holy book got the idea of "sin" its all false to scare you all into believing it all, thats all it is, and its worked a treat on you all, and it is so deeply intergrated into you, that you cant even see it.

Who said all this stuff about sin? God sure as heaven didnt (i put heaven for a reason :rolleyes: ).

I really wish you "believers" could see how much sence religion doesnt make...its about time the "believers" opened their eyes and saw that reilgion is wrong, maybe they should just live out their lives how they want, and not in mortal fear of their souls wheres the point in that?! Why should we live if thats all there is to live for?!

[Eriol]

Do you think killing is ok?

What about lying?

Perhaps rape is "your thing"...

Adultery, any one?

:rolleyes:

[Celebthôl]

In the views of the people doing the acts its ok, is it not?! Why else would they do them?

You may think one thing is wrong, but another person thinks it is right - who is correct then?

[Eriol]

Tell that to the guy who wants to rape you ...

"Oh, I'm sure you are doing this because you think it is correct, so I guess this means you are correct"

Why don't you become a rapist, Thôl? I suppose it is enjoyable, after all, people do it.

Why not?

[Celebthôl]

dont be stupid, i dont view it as right i think its sick, but others think its alright to do, why else would they do it?

Hitler was not wrong wrong, but how could he be wrong if 10 million people supported him?

[Eriol]

Who's being stupid here? It is you who is saying that you don't believe in sin, and yet saying that rape is "sick".

I guess that makes it wrong, doesn't it?

Sick, bad, wrong, sin... you still don't approve of it. Thankfully, you are a smarter and better person than you think. Your mind may believe in this nonsense about "there is no wrong", but the person behind the mind still keeps some measure of sanity and KNOWS that rape, murder, etc. is wrong.

You can call it "sick" if you want. But it's wrong. And this means you have to check all of your thought about right and wrong, and there not being such a thing.

P.S. So if the rapist has a large following of supporters, he is right?

[Celebthôl]

No God has said there is no sin not me, i just told you what he told me (i dont mean he actually told me).

It is not wrong, how i feel about it makes me never want to do it, but answer the question,

Why would the rapist rape if he thought it was wrong?

P.S. If the entire world follows him then yes that makes him right, if only himself follows he is still right.

Answer this question aswell...

Who is correct if you think something, but someone else thinks the opposite, e.g. There are two different parties in the government of American (i forget their name...Democrates and something else), they both believe different things, who is right?

Answer the questions please.

[Eriol]

If I really think that 2+2=5, does that make me right?

If I think God has not said anything of the sort to you, does that make me right?

If the rapist thinks he is doing a right thing (and NO rapist thinks that), does that make him right?

As for your questions, it depends on WHAT is being believed, not on WHO is doing the believing. As I hope I made clear by my own questions.

[Celebthôl]

Its views and actions, not facts facts dont allow for "sin", views and actions do.

i.e.

I view that there is no sin,

Your view there is,

In my eyes im right, and you are wrong,

And in your eyes you are right and I am wrong,

But just as i say there is no wrong, there is also no right (you know my thoughts and stuff on this)...

[Lifeling]

Thol... do you actually think that noone ever does something that they think is wrong... Can you really say that everything youve ever done, was right (even in your own eyes)... If youve ever felt guilt, that is proof that youve sinned.

[Celebthôl]

Guilt is an unnatural emotion, and no i have never felt guilt or jealousy.
I have never done anything that in my eyes is bad (not wrong as there is no wrong), i cant!

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
,

In my eyes im right, and you are wrong,

And in your eyes you are right and I am wrong,


Hey, I noticed you did not answer my questions...

:D

And of course, if I am wrong, it means there is a wrong. If you are right, that means there is a right. Otherwise how can you be right?

;)

And no, Lifeling, he does not really believe that. He is just impressed by some foolish notions he read in a foolish book, once. Otherwise he would follow what he says he believes and steal, rape, lie, etc. etc. Since he does not do it, it is safe to say that he is only saying he believes it.

The proof is in the pudding.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
Hey, I noticed you did not answer my questions...

:D

And of course, if I am wrong, it means there is a wrong. If you are right, that means there is a right. Otherwise how can you be right?

;)

And no, Lifeling, he does not really believe that. He is just impressed by some foolish notions he read in a foolish book, once. Otherwise he would follow what he says he believes and steal, rape, lie, etc. etc. Since he does not do it, it is safe to say that he is only saying he believes it.

The proof is in the pudding.

I did answer your question!

OK ill rephrase it, your learnings are mistaken and you have been led the wrong way (hows that).

EXCUSE ME!

I do believe that, but we set our own boundries, no one else can, you think that because its written somewhere that we will follow it!? yeah good one :rolleyes: So your saying that because i dont go round murdering and raping that i dont believe that they are wrong?
So you believe something, does that mean that you have to do it to proove you believe it?!

[Eriol]

Well, I guess I'll have to repeat my questions, if you think you have answered them:

If I really think that 2+2=5, does that make me right?

If I think God has not said anything of the sort to you, does that make me right?

If the rapist thinks he is doing a right thing (and NO rapist thinks that), does that make him right?

Three simple questions. I have not seen your answer.

[Celebthôl]

They are not views and actions that can be debated but facts that cant be! (first 2 questions)

Yes he is right if he thinks he is! (3rd question)

Why would he do it if he thought he was doing wrong?!

[Lifeling]

Also... Right cannot be just a personal thing... take rape for example... what about the person who is being raped? is the situation of rape ok just cause the rapist believes it is, I dont think the victim thinks so... But of course with your line of thinkng we could abolish laws altogether... who needs a justice system when everyone is justified in their own mind.. right? since no one is wrong there should be no punishment for "crimes".

[Lifeling]

If someone walked up to you and slapped you in the face... would you be angry? probly... but why? he was right! right?

[Celebthôl]

No, im not saying that, im saying, in the eyes of a Rapist rape is ok, but in the eyes of more advanced beings it isnt, what is "right" and "wrong" changes from person to person and it changes all the time with and indevidual!

Exactly, abolish laws, they dont stop the rapists anyway!

(Im deadly serious)

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Lifeling
If someone walked up to you and slapped you in the face... would you be angry? probly... but why? he was right! right?

In his view yes, in my view no, but there is no right or wrong, its just the only way to exlpain.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
They are not views and actions that can be debated but facts that cant be! (first 2 questions)

Yes he is right if he thinks he is! (3rd question)

Why would he do it if he thought he was doing wrong?!

What is the difference between a "fact" and a "view"?

And don't tell me it is that one can be debated and the other can't, or that one can be right and the other can't. I'm looking for the difference between their natures, not between the difference in their consequences.

Did you ever get an addition wrong, Thôl? Was you right both before and after someone corrected you?

(answer the questions, one by one).

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
What is the difference between a "fact" and a "view"?

And don't tell me it is that one can be debated and the other can't, or that one can be right and the other can't. I'm looking for the difference between their natures, not between the difference in their consequences.

Did you ever get an addition wrong, Thôl? Was you right both before and after someone corrected you?

(answer the questions, one by one).

Fact, cannot be disputed it has evidence!

View, can be disputed (we are right now), and has no strong proof, only meger scraps!

yes i got an addition wrong, no i wasnt...whats the relevance?!

[Eriol]

The relevance is that you have just admitted that a "fact" (like 2+2=4) can be disputed. If you make mistakes in adding, who can guarantee that you can't make mistakes in other parts of life?

Let me phrase it more clearly. Take this statement:

"There is no such thing as sin"

You think that is a fact. I think that is a view. How can we decide on which is the right status of the statement?

[Celebthôl]

I see wot you mean, yet again it comes down to faith.

Let me ask you this...

Are you 100% never been more sure about anything certain that you are right?

[Eriol]

I did not understand that question.

Is it a fact that views can be disputed? Or is it just a view?

Conversely, is it a fact that facts can't be disputed? Or is it just a view?

However you hide behind your words, Thôl, the point is that some things are real. Truth is among them. For, if truth is not real, the sentence "truth is not real" is TRUE -- and it again becomes real.

Some very obvious things can be mislaid in your mind once you begin to follow foolish philosophical notions such as absolute skepticism. This is refuted in Philosophy 101.

[Celebthôl]

the question is:

Are you certain beyond any doubt that Christianity is correct?

Its a fact that views can be disputed...

Hard facts cannot be

How am i hiding behind anything?

Whos following the foolish thing here?

[Eriol]

Thôl, Thôl, now don't get upset... logic can be a harsh and painful thing. Get used to it or leave the discussion, or as Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"

:D

Who's talking about Christianity? What does it have to do with the question being argued?

:confused:

It is you who are professing to believe (while not really believing, since you are not a rapist or a thief or a liar) that there is no absolute truth. And logic can disprove that in a short sentence -- I just did it in my last post. Read it again.

Example: If it is a FACT that views can be disputed, then your view that there is no such thing as sin can be disputed, right?

That's the only thing I want to get out of you. I don't want to convert you. But I want you to be logical, for once.

It is part of yout humanity. Don't ever reject logic because of your beliefs.

[Celebthôl]

Bleh.....

Just answer the question (its the begginings of an answer)...

Yes it can be desputed that there is no sin...

But you dont you use logic, here ill give an example

The bible says that we are all sinners, yeah ok the 1 minute old baby is a sinner good one he/she hasnt uttered a word yet it is already on its way to hell...good one :rolleyes:

And the God i hear about kills humans and pretty much hates them or else why should he kill them in such a way?

Where is the logic in that?!

[Eriol]

I'm satisfied. You have changed your mind, and agree that the sentence:

"there is no such thing as sin"

can be disputed.

As for Christianity's "lack of logic", we can do it in another thread if you wish. But you must REALLY wish it, Thôl, because you may be surprised... don't start something that you can't finish.

[Celebthôl]

Oh i am so ready to start it, ill start it whenever you are ready...though if you are as staunch as you are now, there will be no "winner"

[Eriol]

It's not about winning, it's about getting closer to the truth...

You've just admitted that there is such a thing as truth, right?

;)

So the point is getting closer to it. We can check on our advances by logic. Go ahead, open the thread.

[Celebthôl]

There is such a thing as truth...mine :D ;)

Yes i know, but you have to make the promise not to dismiss what i say as naff, and i shall do likewise...ok?

What do you want it called? (Im no good with names)

[Eriol]

The Ultimate Showdown About Christianity -- Celebthôl and Eriol in Mortal Kombat!

;)

How about "a skeptic's view of Christianity"?

Present your case, WHY you think Christianity is illogical.

[Celebthôl]

LOL i liked the first one best :D

Okie dokie....

see ya there

By the by im out of this thread forever now :D

[HLGStrider]

Don't you just love off topics?

I hope you don't mind me busting into you and Cel's thread. You weren't around, and his questions were very easy to answer and all that. . . You can kick me out later if you want.

Cool cat pictures on that website.

[Celebthôl]

LOL thats why we made the new thread :D

Its quite alright you bursting in on it, you can stay...i just dont want to be up against the entire forum :rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

Well considering how many times I've gotten into this arguement or seen Eriol get into this arguement against other forum members, you won't be alone. . .Christians just care more about religion than moral-realativists. I guess because they don't believe good-evil-god exist so if you don't believe they exist why bother argueing?

[BranMuffin]

I might make Eriol upset by posting this but oh well.(Eriol doesn't like me when I quote Dr. Hovind)
www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq and scroll down to question 22 the section about the flood.

Eriol and I have a dispute about whether the Bible is to be taken literally or as a myth but that is on another thread.

If there are any other questions I would be more than happy to answer them. Would be nice if Thorin joined this discussion as well.

[Eriol]

Nah, not upset. Only two people ever made me upset in this forum, and you're not one of them (and neither is Thorin, by the way). It is just that I prefer to talk with a person... when you offer Dr. Hovind's views, it means I should be arguing with him, but I'd rather talk with you.

[BranMuffin]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I just don't have the money or time to research this stuff personally. And so I quote others who have, much as most scientists do.

[Walter]

Here's my take:

Q: Was there a flood?
A: Certainly so, more than one, there's enough evidence...

Q: Did a flood ever cover the whole earth and destroy all life upon it?
A: Certainly not (if we do not take into account the "flood" that covered all of earth in the beginning, before any forms of life developed), physically impossible.

Q: Which flood, then, is the Genesis referring to?
A: Probably one of the floods that were not all that rare in Mesopotamia.

Q: Did God create the flood and erase all Menkind except the passengers of Noah's ark?
Q: Why would an omniscient God, who had created Menkind in his likeness lateron realize that he had failed and search to destroy most of his creation again? Had he not foreseen that things would turn out this way? Or had he foreseen it and was just trying to show off his omnipotentia? Or was God in the visions of J and P not as omniscient as we are led to believe?

---

On a sidenote I would like to mention once again (what Idril already stated) that the Flood as it is described in the Genesis, very much resembles the flood as described in the Mesoptamian myths (Creation, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh) and probably has been inherited from there (since Abram's family was from Ur we even have some evidence in the Bible that the Genesis shares some common ground with the Mesopotamian myths).

[HLGStrider]

I find it more likely that the "myths" of Ur were based on truth. . .especially if you consider the fact that Ur wasn't the only place to have these.

China has a flood story which you can find illustrated on old walls and texts and dates before any Christians or Jews traveled to that land.

Hawaii also has a flood story. . .Or was it Indoniasia. . .

The Aztecs had one complete with dates and a story of them leaving their homeland to come to their new home after the flood.

Various Indian tribes have flood stories.

I think it would be easier to believe that it is based on truth than that all of these are based on one legend from Ur.

[Walter]

Let me put that straight:

A flood motif is indeed found in many cultures, and I too belief that those were based on floods that really had occured at some point in their history, but I believe it is impossible that any flood was covering all of the earth at a time when menkind already existed. Even if we take the rise of the sea-level after the last ice-age as the reason for the Flood it would never have been able to cover all of the landmasses.

I mentioned the Mesopotamian myths because there the Noah/Ark theme appears first (and here probably the Sumerian/Akkadian tale is the oldest). Hence I think that the flood as described in the bible is based on the mesopotamian myths (which themselves most probably are based on one or more real floods that had occurred in Mesopotamia at some point).

The biblical account IMO cannot be taken seriously, but of course it contains a few grains of the truth...

---

Edit: A simple search on the web provides you with a vast amount of links dealing with the Flood issue, here are a few of the - IMO - better ones:

http://www.flood-myth.com/

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/flood.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_flood.htm

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/floodmyth/

http://www.ancientrade.com/chad/overview/flood2.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/52-02-3/sc-harry.htm

http://www.2think.org/hii/flood.shtml

http://www.2think.org/noah.shtml

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm

For those among you who prefer to cling to the biblical account of the flood literally, here's a site that supports this point of view:

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm

[BranMuffin]

There is a problem with those websites, Walter. They are not Biblically accurate and therefore I automatically dismiss them. Their dates on the time of the flood are wrong. The Bible label the flood happening around 4400 B.C..
It stated in the Bible that all the land masses were covered with water, the tallest mountain covered by 15 cubits. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Today’s mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).
All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.
The Bible teaches that before the flood a canopy of water surrounded the earth. This canopy is mentioned in Gen. 1:6&7, Psalms 148:4 and II Peter 3:5. The Creation Account in Genesis 1 records that a mist that went forth and watered the face of the whole ground. Genesis mentions no other precipitation until the flood brought rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Many people teach that rain never fell before the flood. Although that is probably true, it cannot be taught dogmatically because the Bible simply does not mention the subject. Possibly if the canopy of water that is mentioned in Genesis 1:6 and 7 increased the air pressure, as many think it did, rain was not possible.
It may be that Noah was preaching that rain would come out of the sky (something that had never happened), and the people laughed just like today when Christians preach that Jesus will come out of the sky (something that has never happened) to catch up all believers in Christ. See Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:26 and I Thess 4:16.

The biblical account IMO cannot be taken seriously

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine-that the Biblical story of the flood is truth.

Why would an omniscient God, who had created Menkind in his likeness later on realize that he had failed and search to destroy most of his creation again?

Because the mind of men was continually on evil. Destroy the wicked and save the only people worth saving, sounds like a decent plan to me even if I would be one of the wicked. Its His creation He can do whatever He wants to do.

[Walter]

Interesting, BranMuffin, my copy of BibleWorks dates the flood about 2250BCE, which btw. is in better accordance with the Mesopotamian origins of the Atrahasis/Noah tale, but anyway, I wouldn't know

There is a problem with those websites, Walter. They are not Biblically accurate and therefore I automatically dismiss them. That, BranMuffin, is your problem, not mine, as I stated in the other thread I have no intention at all trying to convince you that we don't find much in the Genesis that can be taken literally true. As a technician and learned scientist I would tend to see the Genesis and generally the OT as a mythological account with certain purposes, but if you perfer to take the word in the bible as the last word in history and science then so be it, again, I just wanted to throw in my twopence here too...

[HLGStrider]

This debate is on going with scientists. I would date the flood about the time that Bran put it, but I am not doing this out of scientific reasons. I have no head for numbers and easily forget them, and while I have seen dates before, I can't remember what they were. I could posssibly find out. The books shelf to my right has a few books on that subject.

[BranMuffin]

Originally posted by Walter
That, BranMuffin, is your problem, not mine, as I stated in the other thread I have no intention at all trying to convince you that we don't find much in the Genesis that can be taken literally true. As a technician and learned scientist I would tend to see the Genesis and generally the OT as a mythological account with certain purposes, but if you perfer to take the word in the bible as the last word in history and science then so be it, again, I just wanted to throw in my twopence here too...

Actually I don't think it is a problem. And yes I do prefer to take the Bible as the last word in history and science. Since I believe that the Bible is the spoken word of God handed down over the centuries and the most accurate book since the time it was written. Your twopence is recieved thanks for the money.