Is there a God?

[timothy42b]

Well, this is interesting:

Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, how do we know this?

Care to elaborate Tim?

Sure, I guess I could elaborate all day, brevity is certainly not a requirement here, based on reading the posts above.  But I won't, just three quick points.

One, reading the story should give you the feeling it is intended to be a "just-so" story.  You know how you can tell urban myth most of the time by the feel, without having to go to snopes or doing research?  Any perceptive person should notice the feel of this story. 

Two, all elements of the story are preposterous.  One man builds a boat larger than our shipyards can construct today, with primitive materials?  And collects the world's animals?  And feeds and houses them all, predators and prey alike for a year?  Where did the water come from, there certainly isn't enough on the earth.  Where did it go?  How did the animals get from the ark site to where they now exist, without leaving bones or fossils on the way, BUT with leaving bones and fossils at the remote locations?  On and on.  Apologists aside (yes I've read Woodmorappe) there is no element about this story that is workable.  By the way, the flood was 47 feet deep.  Mt Everest is five miles high.   You do the math.  Little lemma:  Mt Everest is made of limestone - i.e, lots and lots of seashells, transformed into stone.  How long do you think it takes to pile up 5 miles of seashells? 

But three.  Evidence.  When you read the flood apologetics, there is something missing that should be strikingly obvious.  Prediction.  "We predict a layer of mud x inches thick found uniformly across the earth.  or, "we predict bodies of water larger than x feet deep to contain sediment, because it settles at a rate of y inches per year."  Or, "we predict species z should have become extinct because it couldn't tolerate fresh water."  ETc.  That is how science works, you make that kind of prediction then go look for the data.  Creation scientists don't do that, because they know geologists searched for evidence of the flood for centuries and never found any.  You just can't have a catastrophe like that and not find the marks.  Example:  the flood supposedly occurred about halfway through the construction of the pyramids and the great wall of China.  How come neither culture records an interruption in the project?  How come archaeological data doesn't indicate a collapse of the population in either of those areas?  Or any other area in the world?  How come the fossil record shows numerous extinctions separated by time, and none match the supposed time of the flood? 

Now, I grant you it is possible there WAS a flood and God hid the evidence.  But I find that a rather unsatisfying explanation.  It is also possible the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and for some unknown reason God filled it with evidence it is 4.5 billion years old.  ( a ratio of one inch to 9 miles, by the way)  I don't like that explanation either.  We know the universe is about 15 billion years old.  We can see approximately 1,000 stars that are 15 billion light years away.  I guess God could have created them 20 minutes ago with the light just about to reach us - but that kind of mental gymnastics is not what faith is about. 

Understand that I am not arguing as an atheist.  I am arguing as a reasonable, moderate Christian who feels it is dishonest to deny the evidence of my senses.  Some of the stories in the Bible are just that, stories.  They may have profound moral value but they are not intended to be treated as scientific. 

[maul]

The answer to your questions are simple, Tim... Satan is tricking you!!! Stop thinking logically dammit!!!! You are going to hell!!!!!!111

[sarahlein]

Interesting!

What strikes me the most is that if the flood  did not really happen, then that makes Jesus' comparisson in Matthew 24:37-39 pitiful indeed!

For those that don't know, he talks about the end of the world saying "it will be just like in the days of Noah". A very poor argument for a great teacher, as he was known for.

On the other hand where does one put the hundreds of legends, coming from places as far separate as Mesopotamia and South America or Europe and India, talking about a global flood? And other things like marine fossils found on high mountains- how did they get up there?

Where did the water come from, there certainly isn't enough on the earth.  Where did it go?

Wondered about the same thing. I've read an interesting article on that but I have to find it first. When I do I'll share 

[pianistimo]

God 'opened the floodgates.'  only He knows those recesses of the deeps, and how to make so much rain.  it explains why all the glaciers!  if you've ever been to alaska - you realize the magnitude of the water that was left - and when it all melts - we may see the oceans rise quite a bit.

but, God said he would never again flood the earth - so we know he'll perform a miracle to keep us from perishing.  even though there are many wicked, just as abraham prayed for his friend lot - christians today pray for their 'enemies in christ.'  God says that he doesn't want anyone to perish - but for all to come to the knowledge of Him.

the grand canyon always comes to mind when thinking of glacial and flood ideas.  there must have been an awful lot of water running through it to cause such a huge canyon for so many miles.  i've been there and it's awsome!  am sure there are other natural geological formations that would prove a flood too. 

[timothy42b]

Interesting!

What strikes me the most is that if the flood  did not really happen, then that makes Jesus' comparisson in Matthew 24:37-39 pitiful indeed!

For those that don't know, he talks about the end of the world saying "it will be just like in the days of Noah". A very poor argument for a great teacher, as he was known for.

On the other hand where does one put the hundreds of legends, coming from places as far separate as Mesopotamia and South America or Europe and India, talking about a global flood? And other things like marine fossils found on high mountains- how did they get up there?

Wondered about the same thing. I've read an interesting article on that but I have to find it first. When I do I'll share 

100's of legends.  Well, a couple of objections to that spring to mind immediately.  First of all, not all cultures have flood legends.  But most cultures that live near rivers that periodically flood do indeed have flood legends.  They also have legends about many mythological creatures (Paul Bunyan springs to mind) not all of which have any correspondence to reality. 

But here's the big problem.  If a culture existed, and a Noachian flood occurred, then it was utterly wiped out.  So where did the legend come from?  It should have died with the people. 

Do you know where the Genesis flood story actually comes from?  It is a primitive creation myth, traceable to earlier cultures.  The original flood story did not have to do with punishment for sin and destruction of an existing culture, it had to do with the initial creation. 

[pianogeek_cz]

As to the flood point: There's a theory circulating around about what really was the flood: that Bospor wasn't orginally a strait, but a major earthquake (which aren' so scarce in the region) could've shifted the area in a way that Bospor suddenly sank below the sea level. Water came pouring in in unimaginable quantities. The settlers in the flooded area ran away, carrying the story with them to all places they went... Evidence for this theory: settlement remnats have beed found on the Black Sea floor.

The biblic authors must've heard of this event - and interpreted it in the way it's written in the bible...

I think this's not nearly as wild as the other theories... What do you think?

[pianistimo]

people don't believe what they can't understand or what is rarely seen in thousands of years.  but, it doesn't mean because we don't see the ark that it didn't descend on mt. ararat and remain there frozen for many years.  that would be the most obvious way to prove that the flood story is true and that noah did survive (and his family) and that there was actually a boat that big and it did take all the animals that God caused to walk into it - to survive as well.

nasa took some pics over mt. ararat.  surprisingly it is and was a very cloudy mt. top with low visibility much of the year.  i believe that only at certain times the turks allow anyone to even venture near or around let alone up the mountain.  many who live in the area believe that is/was the site of the ark and was protected by the weather and the turkish government.  a few pics have been taken that show a boat which seemingly broke in half - with one half up higher on the mountain.  it was in the EXACT shape as described in the bible.  fairly long and almost rectangular in shape looking down on it.
with all our technology we study space - but for things like this - nasa keeps it a secret.  i think only recently some pics were allowed to be seen for the first time.  also, recently on pbs a lot of documetaries have been shown about exact locations of many places mentioned in the bible.  i would like to see one on the valley of meggido. that is the location in the bible that is foretold for wwIII? and is the location of armagedon.  we do have nations beginning to be interested in that location in the middle east.  we know when the euphrates dries up - that armies will travel down that riverbed to fight.  many nations and not just one.  the weapons we have today are so awesomly powerful and some don't need humans to fly.  we have created a literal catasrophe waiting to happen - and need some supernatural  powers to stop a world war from killing ourselves.

the flood was merciful compared to this!  people that live through bombs, etc. are horrifically burned, maimed, etc. and yet live months to years.  God knows His own reasons and purposes - and nothing can stop Him since He is more powerful than we.  that is a good 'reason' - to rely on his mercy instead of humans.  humans are much less merciful.

[pantonality]

It's unfortunate that the kids seem to have taken over this thread over the weekend. I have a life and was not able to take the time to read and respond earlier. For that I apologise. pianisto made one point that I wanted to highlight. It was her discussion about love and how she found that in Christ. That's wonderful! Spiritual love is an amazing energy, one that I've felt in my own life. It doesn't require the Bible or even Jesus. One of my most amazing spiritual experiences happened during meditation. I had what some have referred to as a peak experience. It was like an electric shock of bliss running through me for over a minute. I was content to just "be" in that experience, the joy and gratitude I felt was stronger than anything I had experienced before. So I am glad that pianisto finds joy in Christ and will not judge that. Just don't close the doors on other avenues to wisdom, there are many.

i think prometheus needs a bibilical scholar to come on and say what exactly h appened at nicea.  i heard something (and don't quote me because i truly don't know), but many of the hebrew texts/books were said to be destroyed if they did not 'match' with 'correct' doctine. there are many versions of Christianity - but, the main tenents are what keep Christians together (love).  if you have love for one another then you are Christ's disciples.  our limited understanding is just that!  limited.

Well there are a lot of stories about those events. The ones enshrined by the Christianity all paint Constantine as a wonderful man who's only concern was the church. Yet he was a Roman emperor who refused to be baptised until he was on his deathbed. I can assume he refused baptism to allow more freedom to govern in an unChristian manner. One of the stories I've heard is that he took a carrot and stick approach. If you accepted his version of the Bible you got to stay in his sumptuous palace for months and if you refused you were banished from the Roman empire. That doesn't sound loving to me.

arguments like this seem pointless to me - because if you are looking for God you will find him everywhere in creation.  and, if you believe in science as a sort of explaination for everything - you eliminate the need for faith (relying on the bible as a source of truth).  by eliminating the bible - truth of God (the gospel in history, spirituality, prophecy) is gone, imo.  but, to prove this to someone else i would have to use personal experience.  that my prayers have been answered on many things...that God has shown me things by trials, too...and that i am learning that just knowing isn't enough. you have to do.  for instance, before my leg was broken i was becoming 'weary.'  i would think about doing things for others, but wouldn't get around to it as often as when i was younger.  now, i think - ok - take a day and go do something for someone else.  it makes you feel better - and even if you don't become a christian right away because of the spiritual rewards you see- you are helping another person and still receive blessing from Him by doing what He says.

I agree that if you seek God you'll find HER (wouldn't you say that God is too big to be just one gender?). But one does not have to read the Bible to find God. There is a lot of wonderful wisdom that is not specific to any religion. If there's a problem with spirituality it's religion that says our way is the only way to God. They can't all be right so how does one choose? My belief comes from personal experience as well and it tells me all paths lead to God. Some just take longer. I got started on my spiritual path by reading Conversations with God, but I've since found a plethora of wonderful books. For example Marianne Williamson wrote this in her book; Return to Love (it's often been attributed to Nelson Mandela, but he never spoke these words).

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be
brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.
There’s nothing enlightened
about shrinking so that others
won’t feel insecure around you.
We are born to make manifest the Glory of God that is within us.
It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone.
And as we let our light shine,
we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fears,
Our presence automatically liberates others.

Isn't that wonderful? Those are powerfully liberating words and they don't box one into any particular dogma.

there's somewhere in the bible that says 'show me your works by your faith, and i'll show you my faith by my works.'  faith and works go with hope - because you can help someone else have hope when everything seems dismal.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but I don't see faith as separate from Science. It was religion that closed the door on Gallileo, it is religion that has tried to close the door in Darwin. If we simply let go of the idea that the Bible is inerrant then that opens the door to finding God within our own hearts, not in some book. In reality this is something we have to do anyway, I mean if your husband died would you really marry his brother? Are football players condemned to hell for touching pigskin? Of course not!  It's simply a matter of degree, we all make these judgments without even thinking about them. The Bible was written for a time 2000 years ago and it has served a great purpose. But now we have the technology to destroy mankind with the push of a button, we need greater wisdom than could be foreseen back in Jesus time. Telling Muslims they're condemned to hell because they don't believe in a Christian God (or vice versa) only leads to an "us and them" world. The world is too small now to support "Us and them" philosophies, like it or not we're one people on a small planet and the sooner we let go of ancient philosphies and deal with our technological and social challenges unencumbered by "old ways" the sooner we can create the New Jerusalem (heaven on earth). But to be accepted by others we have to be accepting of others. That's what was meant by the Ghandi's words "Be the change you wish to see in the world." Isn't that really the most loving way?

Steve

[pianistimo]

i like ghandi's words very much, 'be the change you wish to see in the world.'  but, it's not the totality of what it means to 'know God.'  Christ came to do His Father's will and not His own.  even though he is referred to in the masculine gender - i don't doubt He is Spirit and able to present His wisdom (as in the books of Solomon) in the feminine gender.  He always speaks of wisdom as a sort of mother - giving wise words to a son - and for him to wear them as a necklace of sorts - reminding him of the 'way to go.' 

we wish for peace, enlightenment, for all people to get along - but just wishing doesn't produce the SPirit of God.  we have to actively ask for the Spirit.  this is a higher power than reason.  it's the mind of God.  to pray and read the bible gives you an inroad into God's thoughts.

[pantonality]

However you find God is wonderful for you. If that's in the Bible that's OK, but don't tell me I haven't also found God outside of the Bible. It is helpful to accept that the universe and spirituality are big concepts, too big to be the province of any one religion.

How did you find your religion? Most likely your parents taught you about theirs. What makes you think your parents are so special that they picked the perfect religion over all the other possible religions of the world. Wouldn't that be the height of arrogance? Your parents are as human as all the other parents in the world and I'm sure there are some parents in the world that are a lot smarter. So why assume your parents picked the perfect religion, because they told you so, because that religion told you so? I read somewhere that a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) pastor was censured by his national church for praying for peace on the same stage in NYC (just after 9/11) as a Muslim cleric and other Christian ministers. Apparently LCMS pastors are not supposed to be seen fraternizing with other religious leaders in any way. This is when exclusivist theologies get really stupid. It could be said that ecumenism is the spirit of God. It certainly is a lot more loving. You said you wanted to be accepted for who you are, well what do you think I want? Stop telling me I don't know the spirit of God. Are you saying I don't ask for divine guidance?! You don't even know me, how can you make that judgment? I have said before and will continue to say that there is great wisdom in the Bible, but it has no monopoly on the "mind of God."

I think you missed an important point I made earlier. When I reasoned that if nothing but God existed before the Big Bang then nothing but God exists now I meant exactly that. It's ALL GOD. The good and the bad. You are surrounded by God, nothing else exists. God is not something "out there" (well actually it is), but God is also "in here." Life is an "and" not an "or" situation. Frankly, I don't find as much God in the Bible because it's so judgmental and almost always negative (you'll go to hell if you don't do this or that). The New Testament finally settles on believe in Jesus and you won't go to hell (otherwise too bad).

Pianistimo you ever read any near death experiences? The picture they paint of the after life is very different from what the Bible would have us believe. I know someone who's had one, she likes to call it not a near death experience, but her death experience. Check out https://www.near-death.com/

That's enough for now, something you said just rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe I should have just said wishing can start the spirit of God and left it at that. The reality is you don't find the mother/father/creator/God without seeking, but don't limit your seeking to one faith tradition.

[Torp]

- but for things like this - nasa keeps it a secret. 

Let me get this straight, your "proof" of god is now based on a NASA cover up conspiracy theory?

[sarahlein]

But here's the big problem.  If a culture existed, and a Noachian flood occurred, then it was utterly wiped out.  So where did the legend come from?  It should have died with the people.

I don't see where the problem is when 8 people survived the flood. The story simply spread through them and and their children.

Here's some examples of the legends I had in mind:


Flood Legends

Samples from six continents and the islands of the sea; hundreds of such legends are known:

Australia - Kurnai, Babylon - Berossus’ account and Gilgamesh epic, Bolivia - Chiriguano, Borneo - Sea Dayak, Burma - Singpho, Canada - Cree and Montagnais, China - Lolo, Cuba - original natives, East Africa - Masai, Egypt - Book of the Dead, Fiji - Walavu-levu tradition, French Polynesia - Raïatéa, Greece - Lucian’s account, Guyana - Macushi, Iceland - Eddas, India - Andaman Islands, Bhil and Kamar, Iran - Zend-Avesta, Italy - Ovid’s poetry, Malay Peninsula - Jakun, Mexico - Codex Chimalpopoca and Huichol, New Zealand - Maori, Peru - Indians of Huarochirí, Russia - Vogul, U.S.A. (Alaska) - Kolusches,
 Papago, U.S.A. (Hawaii) - legend of Nu-u, Vanuatu - Melanesians, Vietnam - Bahnar, Wales - Dwyfan/Dwyfach legend.

Need to go on?

By the way also this is of interest:

"The Chinese character for “ship” is derived from the idea of “eight persons in a vessel.” This bears a striking resemblance to the Bible account about Noah and his family, eight persons, who survived the Flood in an ark"

And here's the part about the waters

"Where Did the Floodwaters Go?

"Evidently they are right here on earth. Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level.

If the earth’s surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft)"

Now I think this is worthy of concideration, don't you?

[prometheus]

This is going beyond redicule. I can no longer conprehend.

[leahcim]

Most likely your parents taught you about theirs. What makes you think your parents are so special that they picked the perfect religion over all the other possible religions of the world. Wouldn't that be the height of arrogance?

Part of Pascal's wager debunking says that Pascal doesn't allow for the fact that a different religion / God may be correct.

That is true, but, one part of religious faith usually concerns some kind of afterlife. Aside from the "I will live forever" aspect that might cover a "fear of death". That also gives people who believe, the reassurance that they will see their friends and relatives again.

It's not difficult to find people whose religious faith is strengthened, if not created, through the illness [perhaps a way to help heal them] or death [perhaps a way to be reassured of their future] of someone close.

From that pov they'll have a limited choice of what religion they have to believe. It at least has to be one that still sends Granny on her way and then allows them to meet up with her later.

Of course, if either none of the religions are true, or the one your loved ones believed isn't the right one, they'll still be wrong.

But from a basis of faith [especially a faith created by other deaths] you aren't going to have much success convincing someone otherwise. To say "such and such a religion is wrong, you should follow this one, or be an atheist" might effectively be saying "Nope, Gran was wrong, she won't be there" or indeed anywhere.

However illogical it might appear, if meeting Gran is part of the reason for their faith the smallest possible chance, gained by believing what she did, is still much higher in their mind than the "no chance at all" all other choices are offering.

The best anyone can say is well it's no chance at all for that one too.

[Torp]

Now I think this is worthy of concideration, don't you?

Yes, let's consider some things shall we:

Why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata?

Why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why are none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids. If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood.

How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark. Host-specific diseases which don't kill their host generally can't survive long, since the host's immune system eliminates them. For example, measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood. For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.  Creationists can't pin the blame for germs on Satan. If they do, the immediate question is: How do we know Satan didn't create the rest of the universe? That has frequently been proposed, and if Satan can create one thing, he can create another. If a creationist tries to claim germs are mutations of otherwise benign organisms (degenerate forms, of course), he will actually be arguing for evolution.

How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.

How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live don't exist between the two points? How did so many unique species get to remote islands?

How were ecological interdependencies preserved as animals migrated from Ararat? Did the yucca and the yucca moth migrate together across the Atlantic? Were there, a few thousand years ago, unbroken giant sequoia forests between Ararat and California to allow indigenous bark and cone beetles to migrate?

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.

How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?
Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...]

Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God? If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

Finally, even if the flood model weren't riddled by all these problems, why should we accept it? What it does attempt to explain is already explained far more accurately, consistently, and thoroughly by conventional geology and biology, and the flood model leaves many other things unexplained, even unexplainable. How is flood geology useful?

[ted]

Leachim:

Your post is most sobering. I don't know about you, but the prospect of spending an eternity with my religious deceased relations, never mind the hordes of other sanctimonious clods I've had to put up with, makes oblivion attractive by comparison.

[leahcim]

Your post is most sobering. I don't know about you, but the prospect of spending an eternity with my religious deceased relations, never mind the hordes of other sanctimonious clods I've had to put up with, makes oblivion attractive by comparison.

Indeed, if there's any enterprise in the afterlife, I think the people that arrange seating plans at weddings and Jerry Springer won't be out of work.

[pianistimo]

wow.  so many responses.  i'm realizing that everyone here has a unique take on 'reality.'  it seems that some convince me about as much as i convince them.  and, others are willing to see both sides - and explain what they know and understand, too.

nasa has taken pics, but failed to study into noah's ark (possibly because of the relative difficulty for a corporation to go into turkey - rather than single individual to study the remains). here's an interesting article for anyone who's interested to find out more about individual studies of noah's ark and it's remains.  www.christcenteredmall.com/discoveries/noahs-ark-page-1.htm

for many of the questions torp brought up - i would say - much as with prometheus difficult questions - that i am coming from a position of faith and not of trying to go point by point through things that i know nothing about.  if i were a scientist or theologian, i would argue more.  but, since i am not - i'll just say that i believe personally that there IS a God and that He has a plan for my life.  i feel this by experiences that i have had, and the reading of the bible proves to me that He has the afterlife planned out, too.  He's a God of order (not chaos).  if all the world came into being in a chaotic fashion - big bang only - you would still have to explain how the big bang started.  that's like explaining God exists from everlasting to everlasting.  you can't!

ps about the scriptures and flat earth idea - those scriptures don't match up to anything about a flat earth.  matt.4:8 "again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory..."  (just as we have lcd screens today and can see anywhere in the world - spirits have the ability to see wherever they wish)  if Christ had just fasted 40 days and nights - i imagine satan could test him with thoughts/dreams without showing him a 'flat' world - since God and Jesus (the Word) existed before Him and already knew the kingdom's glories compared to His own.  it is 'firmly established' (not flat) in this physical realm, whereas His kingdom is something we cannot see yet and won't see without holiness.  holiness isn't something that you scientifically dissect. 

in regards to the flood happening AFTER the pyramids - i would simply say (and i know this is simple) READ THE BIBLE.  it tells you what happened so many years ago!  it tells the exact geneology from adam and eve to noah.  adam 130 when he had seth - seth 105 when he had enosh - enosh 90 when he had kenan - kenan 70 when he had mahalelael - maha 65 when he had jared - jared 162 when he had enoch 65 when he had methusela - methusela 187 when he had lamech - lamech 182 when he had noah - noah was 600 years old when the flood occurred.  that would = year 1656 *from beginning of creation.

when God caused all the animals to come to noah, he took all flesh in which was 'the breath of life.'  those that could breath!  worms don't breath. i read in gen. 7:23 "and all flesh that moved on the earth perished...beasts and every swarming thing (insects) that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind."  who knows what insects came with the animals that noah had on the ark.  just don't know that one!  but, these are definately good questions to ask God someday!

what gets many people is the ages of pre-noahan people.  600 years seems utterly ridiculous to our way of thinking.  but, perhaps God made them differently in the sense of lifespans.  if you think about it...what causes us to age and die at a certain time?  God.  he determines our life span however long or short.  they must have been really healthy, and had very strong hearts.  yet, each beat of our heart is a miracle in itself.

another curious scripture is II peter 3:5 "...the earth was formed out of water BY water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water."  does this mean our current world as we know it started with a flood - and was flooded again at noah's time.  just a question?  that WOULD explain a bit more about water being trapped under our earth in various places - and at the time of volcanic eruptions , etc. - the 'foundations of the earth laid bare'  'springs of the deep' (ocean) gushing out water along fissures or places that allowed water to escape.  also, as saralein pointed out - there is so much % of water already covering our earth.  very many interesting things about our earth that we just don't know yet.

[cziffra]

This is a serious question:  Do you really believe in Noah's Ark, or are you just having fun?

[pianistimo]

i believe it without seeing it, but if someone gave me a ticket to turkey and to the area mentioned - i would go.  i would want to see it myself, too.  the pics are nice - but just as we see pictures in books - it would be nicer to see it in person.  after reading the story of ron wyatt and seeing similar guidances in my own life - i don't doubt the cab stalled in the three places mentioned and guided him to the exact places that God wanted him to see.

it's hard to explain to other people when you experience 'strange' phenomenon.  but at several times in my life i have.  people would laugh at me if i told them, so i don't say anything.  once, during a 'communion' (with wine/bread) passover meal i felt a hand on my right shoulder.  i turned around very quickly, and the people behind me were all sitting far back.  i thought - this is crazy - i don't see anyone's hand here - so i must have imagined the pressure on my right shoulder.  i have no idea what it meant - or was supposed to mean - or if i was hallucinating (but, i do know that i felt it and was not on any type of drugs - and never have been).

also, i have been guided to run away from or escape bad situations.  once out jogging, i was followed at a distance by a fellow that seemed like he was jogging, too.  i had one of those spine chilling feelings and just 'screamed' out of the blue - right before he was about to hit me on the back of the neck.  (what was really wierd is that he was shorter than me - so he must have had to jump).  anyway, when i screamed before he hit - he had his own hysterics and ran off faster than i imagined he would into the nearby brush. 

there have been many many times - sort of strange stuff has happened.  i can't even tell how many.  i remember waking up one time and going out to get a drink and seeing these two huge spiders (in lancaster, near the mojave desert) that somehow got into the house in the livingroom.  i felt like i was guided to get up - and be able to kill them with a newspaper - so they wouldn't hurt my second child who was a baby at the time.

little stuff and big stuff - just all mixed together.  from the explainable to inexplainable.  barely missing several head on car accidents, hearing a possible break in - and locking the double lock on the door, several wild animal incidents (one with a wolf, two or three with bear, one mountain lion, one moose, several with snakes (thanking God for my cat),  coyotes in the desert while bicyling).  those coyotes had completely circled a rabbit or something - but, i didn't see them until they started howling - i looked over and there they were all circled around the rabbit.  i thought, oh no - they're going to come after me  - so i rode like lance armstrong because i had to cycle a 90 degree corner with the road and they could angle it.  i was so out of breath after that ride - i just practically died from fright. 

it all seems like stories to someone else, but for me, all this was real.  each incident.  and, i have many with my children, too.  my son should be dead three or four times.  once he took someone else's heart medication - and after a glass of milk was fine.  my daughter has had several bad bouts of flu.  was bitten on the lip by a dog and doesn't have any visible scarring.  so many scary things - but each one was an amazing deliverance.  i really do thank God each and every time.  and, yet, i don't go around looking for Him to do everything for me.  pretty much the opposite.  very independent.  but, after this leg incident, realizing that acknowledging Him in every aspect of our lives makes our lives blessed.  we can't really do so much for ourselves always.  we do rely on his grace and mercy for our life and our blessings.

[pianistimo]

one particular incident sticks in my mind, too.  i did a foolish thing and went cycling at noontime on a 100 degree day.  i cycled a lot in the past - so it wasn't unusual to go at around 9 am or 10, but i missed that time - and i wanted to go cycling really badly.  so, i got on my bike and just went for it.  usually i did this large loop from my house around and back that was about 12-18 miles.  anwya, about halfway through the loop i had drunk all my water.  and, it was HOT.  i started kind of panicking in my head because i was getting hot inside and out.  kind of like microwaving.  i prayed to God for some help...and sure enough (out in the desert) there was this little church.  so i went in the back couryard and sure enough - there was a water fountain.  even though it dribbled water - it was good water...and i totally enjoyed it.  then, i was still hot - and there was this one big tree to sit in the shade of.  that made me think again!  hmmm.  i didn't die again today.  maybe i used to challenge God mentally and do stuff just to see what would happen.  after cooling off and filling up my water bottle, i thanked God and went on my way.  seems kindof corny to someone else, but real to me.

[timothy42b]

people don't believe what they can't understand or what is rarely seen in thousands of years.  but, it doesn't mean because we don't see the ark that it didn't descend on mt. ararat and remain there frozen for many years.  that would be the most obvious way to prove that the flood story is true and that noah did survive (and his family) and that there was actually a boat that big and it did take all the animals that God caused to walk into it - to survive as well.

This is just plain silly.  The ark didn't descend on Ararat because there was no flood.  A flood of that size would have left evidence and it did not.  The Bible says the flood was 47 feet deep and that would not have covered Ararat anyway.  I cannot believe God wanted us to totally abandon common sense.  Plus, if there had been an ark, it wouldn't still be there.  It would have been the only source of building material in the entire world until trees had grown again, for at least 20 years, so it would have been disassembled and used for shelter.  And no, the ark has not been found on Ararat.  There is a natural stone formation that is vaguely boat shaped.  There isn't anyone who disagrees except a couple of strange people making a good living off it. 

Look, this is just like thinking Santa Claus could actually get to every house in one night, and fit down every chimney.  There is a point where you grow up and accept that some cherished childhood fantasies never did make sense. 

The way to prove the flood story was true wouldn't have anything to do with an ark.  It would be to predict what kind of evidence a global flood would leave, and go look for it.  Much of the foundations of geology (prior to plate tectonics) were laid by ardent Christian geologists doing exactly that - only they had the integrity to admit they couldn't find any.  For example, sea shells.  What would you expect to find on top of a mountain covered for one year by fresh water?  One layer of freshwater adapted clams on every mountain?  Maybe.  But that isn't there.  You find some areas with none, and some with a kilometer or so deep layer of salt water species.  Sorry, that isn't evidence for a flood.  That is merely evidence of dishonesty on the part of apologists.

I guess I should point out one more flaw in the flood story.  Nobody claims all the modern species fit on the ark, even guys like Woodmorappe who made their living defending the ark claims with pseudoscience.  Even to them it is obvious the millions of modern species couldn't have fit.  So they claim the ark had a limited number of "kinds," which is an undefined term that seems to refer to some grouping above the species level, maybe genera or families.  Then these few number of kinds EVOLVED to form all the the modern species, but in 2,000 years.  The claim is that evolution could not have worked over a period of 4.5 billion years, but did so easily within 2,000. 

Isn't the weight of nonsense beginning to build here?   Doesn't it make you start to wonder a little?  God intended us to get some kind of message from this story or He wouldn't have given it to us.  By insisting it is literal, we are missing the message and trashing His gift.  I consider that sinful. 

[gruffalo]

i tend to stay of the Old Testament at the moment. i am not experienced enough to understand it and its quite harsh aswell. if you want to start reading the bible just to see what its all about, its best to read places in the new testament, which focus more about becoming better people and telling the story of Jesus.

[pianistimo]

dear timothyb,

you didn't read the article.  if you had, you would see that the ark just didn't sit there forever.  but, i find it interesting that the formation is STILL there. there was evidence of a volcanic eruption and lava flow - and the succeeding years of petrification of the wood.  the ark just doesn't sit there anymore in it's original state.  plus, many people have come and gone in the area.

what is most interesting to me is that christians who have come and gone in the area have recognized the burial plots and area to be noah's.  also, the turks have a museum with artifacts from the site - and if you ask someone in the area to see 'noah's ark' you won't find people saying - it's nowhere around here.  people have recognized the site - just as people recognize other FACTUAL places.  the mountains of ararat are a REAL place.  how do you explain so many things that are found to be true down through history - and saved for us today in a time bubble of volcanic lava that cooled, preserved in a sort of bubble (since ark was already under some of the earth), the lava turned to dirt again after many years (just as in hawaii) and you can see the outline of the ark - and the symmetry, size, etc. even MATCHED the bible's description.  also, we have eyewitnesses to the curious elements that would surround an ark of that size.  boat anchors - you have to read the article to understand why people think that may have been noah's ark.

about how deep the water was...genesis 7:19-20 says, "and the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the surface of the water.  and the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that ALL the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.  the water prevailed fifteen cubits HIGHER (AFTER the mountains were covered) AND THE MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED."  this rain fell 40 days - but it wasn't only rain that caused the flooding. gen. 7:11 "...all the fountains of the GREAT deep burst open."  so we have, rain descending, and flood waters from the ocean rising (from fissures that happened to break at the time God said they would under the sea).  every living thing DIED. 

today, we are told life will be much like the days of noah. people drinking and eating, marrying (not that there's anything wrong with that) but not acknowledging God in their doings.  and, it says Jesus Christ will 'suddenly' come to His temple (his people).  that is why the parables in matthew are important (even though they sound like stories).  we are told to 'be ready' and be witnesses at a time when people scoff and don't believe.  when it happens, people will believe, but for some it will be too late.  i'm just saying - what's the harm in believing even if you have a shadow of doubt.  there's nothing to lose - you gain your life now and also life with Jesus Christ and God.

 

[Torp]

what is most interesting to me is that christians who have come and gone in the area have recognized the burial plots and area to be noah's. 

This is absurd.  The article you referenced basically jumped to conclusions that are totally unfounded...especially if you use the bible as the source of FACTS.

The bible says Noah lived in tents; this christian family (looking for evidence to support their belief in Noah) comes across the ruins of stone dwellings and then states that Noah "must have" lived in stone houses some of the time just like they do now, therefore this is Noah's house.

Yeah right.

Yes, let’s look at the flood a little closer shall we.  First though, I must say that I wonder seriously about a god that would do one thing and then arrange all the evidence to make it look as if something else entirely different had happened.  But I suppose that’s a discussion for another day.

Most people who believe in a global flood also believe that the flood was responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. The alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time sequence of several generations at least, would prove that some kind of evolutionary process occurred. Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory.

Let’s look at a conflicts:

A conflict based on the number of fossils observed:
Creationists believe and teach that the fossil remains of land animals which have been found trapped in the many rock layers were actually ALL alive at the time of Noah's flood. These few generations of animals all drowned simultaneously at the time of the flood. Some turned into fossils and were trapped in the layers of sedimentary rock which were laid down during the 150 days of the flood. With the present knowledge and archeological findings, it appears impossible to harmonize this belief with the actual number of fossils in existence.  Let’s address this number shall we?

In the book, "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer," by Robert Schadewald Schadewald writes: "Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 BILLION (emphasis added) animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. To a non-creationist mind, that seems a bit crowded"  That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre.  A VERY conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed during that time, there would have been over 2,100 living animals PER ACRE of land - ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously HIGH number) then there would have been about 50 land animals PER SQUARE FOOT of land wandering around at the time of Noah. The Earth would have been packed "wall-to-wall" with creatures. Animals would have been stacked on other animals to form multiple layers. Even if, as many creation scientists believe, the land area on Earth was much greater than it is today -- that is, closer to 100% than to 25% -- the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, animals could not be evenly distributed around the entire land mass. This means that the piles of animals covering some areas would be even deeper.

REAL scientists have concluded that the world's fossils came from millions of generations of animal life spread out over many hundreds of millions of years. Since all of the fossils were formed over a very long interval, then only a very tiny fraction of the animals would have been alive at any one time. The Earth could and did accommodate them all.

A second conflict based on the lack of mixing of fossils
The theory of evolution and the beliefs of young-earth creation scientists are in conflict over the distribution of species within the fossil record.

If creation science is correct, then the fossils and sedimentary rocks were formed quickly during the 150 day flood. Fossil-containing rocks which are closer to the surface should contain generally larger animals of all the species that have ever lived, while the deeper rocks should tend to contain more, smaller species of animals. That is because the smaller animals would have presumably drowned first with the rising water level, while larger animals would have survived longer before dying as they could have traveled further from the rising flood waters. Additionally there should be the occasional fossil from a large animal mixed in with the smaller animals deep in the fossil record. Remains of ground-hugging plants should tend to be in the deepest layers of rocks; larger trees would be in rocks closer to the surface. You get the idea.

If you looked long enough, you should find (for example) the occasional dinosaur mixed in with human remains. You should find a Jurassic Cycad (an extinct tree) mixed with some more modern Maple trees. Trilobites would be found everywhere. In addition, as you excavated through layers of rock, you should occasionally discover signs of human habitation at the bottom layer -- cities, towns, villages, cornerstones, etc. -- which were covered first by the flood. Scientists should find shaped rocks that were once part of buildings; remains of campfires; fabricated tools; fabricated timbers, graves, corner stones, etc. at the bottom of the fossil record.

If, on the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is correct then the fossil record and sedimentary rocks were formed over many hundreds of millions of years, as species evolved. One would expect to see that deeper rocks would contain more primitive forms of life, and shallower fossils would be of more highly evolved species. The tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists working over the past centuries would NEVER find a single Jurassic Cycad fossil mixed in with a Maple tree fossil in the same rock layer. That is because Maples emerged during the more recent Cretaceous era when the Cycads were long extinct. Dinosaurs would NEVER be mixed with the remains of humans, dogs, cats and other modern mammals. The first human evolved tens of millions of years after the last dinosaur apparently died. And no mammals or dinosaurs at all would be found in the same rock layer as trilobites (an early form of life that was long extinct before the arrival of the dinosaurs). There would be no signs of human habitation at the lowest layer; only very primitive life forms. In fact, there are probably at least 1 MILLION PAIRS of species that would never be found together in the same rock layer.

Many tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists have been studying rocks and the fossils that they contain for centuries. They have found that the species of fossils in the rock layers DO NOT resemble the scenario required by the flood of Noah. They MATCH EXACTLY the scenario required by the theory of evolution.

Let me guess, the answer will be something along the lines of, "Don't confuse me with the facts.  My belief is based in faith.  I can therefore ignore common sense.  God did it all on purpose to test everyone's faith."

At this point, I could really care less whether god exists.  If s/he does, and this is the type of petty, sniveling trickery s/he engages in then I have no allegiance.

[pianistimo]

it stated in the article that people back then lived in tents during the summer and rock dwellings in the winter.  would you stay in a tent in the winter?

and, what if the animals weren't evenly distributed at the time of the flood.  there are assumptions made for both of us - since we just don't know.

i admire your scholarly approach, though, and would respect your studies should you look into the matter personally.  i don't believe everything i read either.  many people write books that try to prove one side or the other and you have to take both into consideration so you can refute what seems like fact - when it might be an assumption.  unfortunately, many things turn to dust and not all to fossil.  some things are just not visible - from ages ago - and some are.  we have to corroborate writings and geology and archeology - and i'm afraid i'm not a scholar to determine these things and correlate it with faith that there is a God by it.  God just exists, to me.

anyway, i still respect you guys and whether you believe in God or don't isn't a matter for me to push down your throat.  my perspective is different than fundamentalist, really, because i don't tend to start the conversation.  to me, God is obvious.  but, maybe it's a matter of just blindly believing.  (as children do).  this is difficult to reason with someone who wants to argue about geology, theology, etc.  it gives me a headache actually because i'm not a scholar of these things.

i think i am off this thread.  i just believe because too many things cross over into my personal life.  i need to know that there IS a God and He has revealed Himself to me in many 'intangible' and 'tangible' ways that i cannot prove to you.  I need God and I have learned that He loves me no more no less than others - but he shows favor to those that acknowledge Him and love Him, too.  I want to be in God's kingdom.  i believe the bible to be the Word of God.  and, i hope to see my relatives again (as well as many people that i've known - both friends and 'enemies')  it would make me happy if my 'enemies' were to know God.  that would prove that God is bigger than our petty disagreements.  He loves all people and wants all to come to the knowledge of Him.  so, even though He made it difficult (as you said), it's not impossible.  what if everything was so easy to figure out?  we'd say - God is really stupid.  But, things are complicated so we might have something to do on this earth while we're here. 

[pantonality]

OK, with regard to the flood. It has been shown that sometime within the last 10,000 years the Black Sea flooded catastrophically due to rising sea level. What happened is that the water of the Mediterranean Sea rose over the Bosporus and the Black Sea flooded quite suddenly. Sounds to me like a good reason to start a flood story that would become myth. Floods are pretty common events so it's no surprise that many cultures have stories of big floods.

From that pov they'll have a limited choice of what religion they have to believe. It at least has to be one that still sends Granny on her way and then allows them to meet up with her later.

Of course, if either none of the religions are true, or the one your loved ones believed isn't the right one, they'll still be wrong.

But from a basis of faith [especially a faith created by other deaths] you aren't going to have much success convincing someone otherwise. To say "such and such a religion is wrong, you should follow this one, or be an atheist" might effectively be saying "Nope, Gran was wrong, she won't be there" or indeed anywhere.

However illogical it might appear, if meeting Gran is part of the reason for their faith the smallest possible chance, gained by believing what she did, is still much higher in their mind than the "no chance at all" all other choices are offering.

The best anyone can say is well it's no chance at all for that one too.

I mentioned before near death experiences, perhaps better termed death experiences. These are not rare. What I've observed from reading them is that it doesn't matter what you believe, heaven is for everyone. It doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't even matter what you've done in life. Well actually it does matter what you've done because a common feature of death experiences is the life review in which you get to experience how your every thought, word and action impacted everyone else. But I believe there is NO eternal punishment.

pianistimo posted some experiences of hers that strike me as very similar to my experience during the NYC blackout (posted earlier). There is nothing in her experiences that would indicate such an experience is limited to Christians. I believe the power of spirit is something anyone can access.

[timothy42b]

  i'm just saying - what's the harm in believing even if you have a shadow of doubt.  there's nothing to lose - you gain your life now and also life with Jesus Christ and God.

 

No, you misunderstand me, perhaps willfully so, perhaps innocently.

I am not opposed to faith.  I do not believe science and religion must be opposed.  But I also do not believe we are supposed to check our brain at the door.  I do not believe in the global flood.  Theologians do not believe in a global flood.  Seminary trained preachers of all denominations do not believe in a global flood, though they are not quick to advertise that to parishioners not ready for understanding.  This should not come as a shock to you, and it is tragic that it does.  

I think belief in a global flood is dangerous for a number of reasons.  Faith is one thing, but blind adherence to doctrine that is clearly in error is sinful.  It teaches disdain for critical thinking, scholarship, intelligence, and honesty and integrity.  pp, you don't know whether the science behind evolution or young earth creationism makes any sense, because you don't have the background.  You are therefore trusting in the people who have told you the earth is young and evolution didn't happen.  They do have the background, and they are knowingly lying to you.  That deeply saddens me.  Though "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is not actually one of the Ten Commandments (nor is "Thou shalt not kill) I still take it seriously as a value and a sacred charge.  

You seem also to have cited Pascal's wager, which falls apart on logical grounds in a number of ways.  Better to leave that for another post though.  

[pianistimo]

but, i just stated that i had questions myself about peter's statement about a possible flood at the beginning of our known creation.  i really don't know how old the earth is!  it is entirely possible that we both don't know.  i believe our creation as we know it is the age the bible says it is.  that doesn't mean there might have been something before that was flooded - if peter is referring to an earlier creation.  genesis states that God's spirit was 'hovering over the waters.'  what does that mean?  that there was water there previously - maybe?  whatever the beginning, i believe that 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' at at the beginning of our 'world' the earth was in a state of chaos.  that might correspond with II peter 3:5-6 where God says that the heavens existed 'long ago' and that perhaps our 'universe' is just the tip of the iceburg.  it says the earth was formed 'out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.'  that might explain the 'ice age' which is commonly accepted as killing off the dinosaurs.  frankly, i don't know.

ii peter 3:10 "but the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat,and the earth and it's works will be burned up."  this is AFTER the millenial rule of Christ on the earth - as mentioned in revelations 20:2-3 "...satan should not decieve the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he should be released for a short time..."  and vs. 5 "the rest of the dead did not come to life until after the thousand years were completed.  this IS the first ressurrection.  blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first ressurrection; over these the second death has no power..."

when the thousand years are completed - satan will again attempt to decieve the nations - just as we have been tested - the millenial rule of Christ will be challenged again.  but, God will judge satan and the 'false prophet' - those that believe satan - and judge the ENTIRE world at that time (rev. 20:11 speaks of that ressurrection of all who ever lived).  this is the day of judgement that dante and all those want others to believe will be an eternally burning hell fire.  it's only eternal for satan - he will be tormented day and night.  BUT, for those that are not found in the book of life - they will die a 'second death.' otherwise this 'second death' would not be mentioned in rev. 20:6 ("over them the second death has no power")

then, rev. 21 speaks of a new heaven and new earth.  this is a totally new heaven and earth - and the verse in peter that tells of this earth being burned up will be true.  every word of God will come to pass because He is true and His word is truth.  it is not a small prayer to pray that your name be kept in 'the book of life.'  you life might depend on it in the future.  (yet, it's a seemingly small thing to pray now - since you are alive now).

[Torp]

it is not a small prayer to pray that your name be kept in 'the book of life.'  you life might depend on it in the future.  (yet, it's a seemingly small thing to pray now - since you are alive now).

Hellfire and brimstone scare tactics were one of the reasons I sought better answers to begin with.  Thinly veiled threats regarding the eternal damnation of my soul didn't hold much water when I was a child; they hold even less now.

Jef

[donjuan]

i think i am off this thread.  i just believe because too many things cross over into my personal life.  i need to know that there IS a God and He has revealed Himself to me in many 'intangible' and 'tangible' ways that i cannot prove to you.  I need God and I have learned that He loves me no more no less than others - but he shows favor to those that acknowledge Him and love Him, too.  I want to be in God's kingdom.

Now, I just feel sorry for you...    My 6-year old cousin makes up imaginary friends when she's lonely too.  Get out of the house!  Watch movies!  Unscrew the bible from the computer desk and actually enjoy the forum for what it is!  Who can take you seriously when you spend each day so removed from reality?  I've seen your post vs. time graph here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=7899;sa=statPanel

Do you even sleep??  I'd be having irrational thoughts and hallucinating too if I were you.

[pantonality]

when the thousand years are completed - satan will again attempt to decieve the nations - just as we have been tested - the millenial rule of Christ will be challenged again.  but, God will judge satan and the 'false prophet' - those that believe satan - and judge the ENTIRE world at that time (rev. 20:11 speaks of that ressurrection of all who ever lived).  this is the day of judgement that dante and all those want others to believe will be an eternally burning hell fire.  it's only eternal for satan - he will be tormented day and night.  BUT, for those that are not found in the book of life - they will die a 'second death.' otherwise this 'second death' would not be mentioned in rev. 20:6 ("over them the second death has no power")

then, rev. 21 speaks of a new heaven and new earth.  this is a totally new heaven and earth - and the verse in peter that tells of this earth being burned up will be true.  every word of God will come to pass because He is true and His word is truth.  it is not a small prayer to pray that your name be kept in 'the book of life.'  you life might depend on it in the future.  (yet, it's a seemingly small thing to pray now - since you are alive now).

Yawn.....

I hope pianistimo you come to understand how such writings promote the status quo. I've said before that much in the Bible is Roman crowd control and this is a prime example of that. We've beem waiting for the Kingdon of God to come since Jesus time. Don't you think 2,000 years is long enough? If there is a nuclear armegeddon it will be because of the foolishness of man. We were at the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missle crisis, but not since (thank you God). It almost sounds like you want these things to happen. When you quote chapter and verse in response to reasoned discussion you show an unwillingness to think for yourself. I find that saddens me because it's obvious you have a head on your shoulders with an intact mind, yet you refuse to use it. Instead you go back to your book.

So here's a question for you, are you aware that the ancient Hebrew word for fear is the same as the word for reverence. So are we to fear God or revere God? That's a big difference in meaning and points to the fragility of translating from the original Biblical source. Maybe it's that in ancient times it was easy to revere the things that scared you, that just means that a God could be made of any scary event. That may have made sense when little was known about the causality of earthquakes, famines and epidemics. So in our modern times should we fear God or revere God? Your Bible cannot help you answer this question because their word for those actions was the same.

Fear or revere? Which is it?

[pianistimo]

dear torp,  i respect your views but wish you would reconsider.

dear donjuan,  you are right!  i spend too much time on the forum.  last night i was on till 12:30 pm - my family also thinks i'm crazy.  but, notice !  occasionally i post something about piano that's helpful.  i just found sibley music library and think it's  quite cool (eastman school of music - library of pubic domain music you can print out).  i posted it in 'repertoire' under sibley music library. 

dear pantonality, crowd control.  a minority of people in the world today are christian.  how could that be crowd control?  we don't control minds, or tell people what to think.  just options.  that's preaching the 'gospel' as a witness - which is a prerequisite for Christ's return (that all people will hear His words).

reverence and fear?  hmmm. i've heard that one before.  once i answered yes, i fear God, and at another time no, i do not FEAR (afraid, shaking in a corner for what HE will do to me - because i have faith that He won't be the one to hurt me).  depends on who asks the question.  if it is from someone who also believes in God - they would understand 'fear' to mean 'respect, reverence.'  if it is someone who doesn't know God yet - it would be 'hellfire and brimstone.'  of course, if i'm wrong and headed the other direction - maybe i'm not fearful enough for my soul to change as much as i need to.  but, i often pray 'Lord, please change whatever is lacking and increase my faith.'

[timothy42b]

Don't pick on pp too much, she is much more intelligent than most who take her viewpoint, and there may be hope yet.

The title of this thread is "Is there a God?"  So reference the flood story, I offer the following analysis:

pp (and widely held in evangelical circles) position:  Belief in God equals belief in Flood.  If I believe in God I must believe in Flood, regardless of evidence to the contrary (and it is overwhelming whether you like it or not). 

one atheistic position:  Belief in God equals belief in Flood.  Since Flood is so obviously and evidentially not possible, I can't believe in God either.  If they can't get something as simple as that right, what are the chances the doctrines of salvation are even close? 

my position (and that of moderate Christians everywhere):  Belief in God is not necessarily relevant to belief in Flood.  The Bible is known to have scientific and historical inaccuracies as well as numerous internal inconsistencies, but this does not rule out containing some profound truths.   Nor does belief in God depend on literal or inerrant adherance to Bible. 

[pantonality]

my position (and that of moderate Christians everywhere):  Belief in God is not necessarily relevant to belief in Flood.  The Bible is known to have scientific and historical inaccuracies as well as numerous internal inconsistencies, but this does not rule out containing some profound truths.   Nor does belief in God depend on literal or inerrant adherance to Bible. 

Tim,

I agree completely, however, you may find this argument less than compelling for true believers. You see the moment you allow any inaccuracy in the Bible you then allow for personal judgment. This is a great danger because once the cat's out of the bag you don't know where one's personal judgment will take one (possibly away from the church!). So these congregations make it a test of faith, you either believe it all (and/or your pastor's interpretation of scripture) or you'll be damned to hell.

So you see your judicous belief in the Bible is a source of great danger to the true believer. What they miss is the greater depth of faith because you have no doubt in that which you choose to believe. I don't know pianistimo and cannot comment on her faith, but I know that if that was me the fact that so many sectors of our society question so many aspects of the Bible would cause me to doubt it. In fact that's exactly how my faith journey evolved, except that my parents and my church encouraged me to ask questions and use my own critical judgment.

It wouldn't surprise me if pp considers even being here to be a great test of her faith. That's why she resists our logical arguments (well actually she dismisses them by feigning igorance), I believe she thinks it makes her a "faithful hero" in her own eyes (pp please correct me if I'm wrong). That's why I find her participation to be less than genuine. Her only response to our argumants has been to quote the Bible, a document which we have shown has questionable origin. So I don't disagree that she has shown some intellect in this discussion, but as long as staying in the discussion means she gets to play hero she's not going to admit any validity to our arguments. Kinda sad really.

So let me finish with a quote from the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is one of the books found in 1945 in Egypt and is part of the Nag Hammadi Library, it is also in the Berlin Gnostic codex. It consists of 113 sayings of Jesus, but the tone is significantly different from the Synoptic Gospels (probably why it wasn't included in the Bible at the Council of Nicaea). So here's saying #2;

Jesus said, " Let one who seeks not stop seeking until one finds. When one finds one will be disturbed. When one is disturbed one will be amazed, and will reign over all."

To paraphrase that in a way that may be comprehensible to the modern reader. Let one who seeks enlightenment keep seeking until one finds it. When one finds it they will be disturbed because they'll realise they had it all along, yet this fact will also be amazing because it means that enlightenment is easy to attain by giving up preconceptions and egoic investment.  Once one accepts enlightenment they find endless joy in the process of being alive.

Pretty cool stuff eh?

Steve

[Torp]

Pretty cool stuff eh?

Steve

Very cool.  Kind of lends credence to the theory that during all those years that Jesus disappeared he traveled to, and was educated in, many of the eastern philosophies.  Many of Jesus' teachings seem to bear a remarkable resemblance to teaching from the Tao Te Ching.  The main difference being that the Tao Te Ching was written 500 years before Jesus came along.

[prometheus]

There are chistian buddhists who view christ as a buddha rather than part of the trinity.

[ted]

Timothy42b:

I left this discussion alone because my past ventures into such threads have been less than enlightening for me to say the least. However, your posts reveal both tolerance and, at least in some sense of the word, religious belief. In connection with the original title of the thread, I can therefore explain my problem with it in the hope of a reply which is neither logically fallacious nor emotionally aggressive. I have the temerity to suggest my position, though as old as thought itself, will not be unique among forum members.

My main difficulty is the problem of evil, to be more specific, natural suffering, because it cannot be as easily dismissed by theists as the other types of evil. Suffering seems to be intrinsic to life whether we are good, bad or indifferent. 80,000 innocent children killed in a tsunami, for example, is a fact, and the buck stops with the boss. Therefore I cannot see how an omnipotent deity can be wholly good. Even if we can conceive of a totally transformed, blissful state which is so much better by comparison, the here and now is still part of the whole and stands as a colossal mess regardless, a celestial boil on the bum. Some odd souls of various persuasions would have us believe that suffering is either good, or all in our minds anyway. Suffice it to say that, try as I might, I have stopped a long way short of being able to embrace Aldous Huxley's ideal of regarding turds as gentian violets.

So that is my position. If such a creature exists he's a monster and not worthy of anything but our contempt. I have never really been able to reason otherwise. I am not the sort of person who can accept a stark contradiction because of mystical experiences (and I have had my share of so called mystical experiences) or from a desire for emotional comfort. Fortunately, I see no good reason to suppose such a being exists at all; it would add insult to injury.

I am interested in your comments but please stick to just this one point - the problem of evil and its implication concerning the existence of God. Once a discussion gets into different meanings for "God" other than an actual being, or pontifications about various cherished books and mythology, the sense of a thead usually deteriorates rapidly.
 

 

[Torp]

So that is my position. If such a creature exists he's a monster and not worthy of anything but our contempt. I have never really been able to reason otherwise. I am not the sort of person who can accept a stark contradiction because of mystical experiences (and I have had my share of so called mystical experiences) or from a desire for emotional comfort. Fortunately, I see no good reason to suppose such a being exists at all; it would add insult to injury.

Very well said.

I'll leave others to address evil as I'm confident anything I have to say on the matter wouldn't be enlightening to you in any way.

[pantonality]

My main difficulty is the problem of evil, to be more specific, natural suffering, because it cannot be as easily dismissed by theists as the other types of evil. Suffering seems to be intrinsic to life whether we are good, bad or indifferent. 80,000 innocent children killed in a tsunami, for example, is a fact, and the buck stops with the boss. Therefore I cannot see how an omnipotent deity can be wholly good. Even if we can conceive of a totally transformed, blissful state which is so much better by comparison, the here and now is still part of the whole and stands as a colossal mess regardless, a celestial boil on the bum. Some odd souls of various persuasions would have us believe that suffering is either good, or all in our minds anyway. Suffice it to say that, try as I might, I have stopped a long way short of being able to embrace Aldous Huxley's ideal of regarding turds as gentian violets.

So that is my position. If such a creature exists he's a monster and not worthy of anything but our contempt. I have never really been able to reason otherwise. I am not the sort of person who can accept a stark contradiction because of mystical experiences (and I have had my share of so called mystical experiences) or from a desire for emotional comfort. Fortunately, I see no good reason to suppose such a being exists at all; it would add insult to injury.

I've read a few books on these matters and the issue of evil or natural suffering is definitely discussed in most of them. The subject is too large to attempt to address in one post. There are a few things I'd like you to ponder.

What if God was indeed a magificent being that comprised everything that exists in the spirit and relative (this one) universes? In the spirit universe all is perfect and wonderful. If that was all that existed how would God know that he was good. As I said before without a frame of reference there is no way to know. Or as I've heard it said, "In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are is not." So hard as it may be to comprehend nothing is totally good or bad.

In addition if we are in fact eternal spiritual beings having a human experience, then at some point we might choose to experience death by tsunami or earthquake. And how would you or I know if death is a good or bad experience. It would seem to me that you are making judgments with insufficient information. I would suggest you read some of the near death experiences at www.near-death.com. That's as close as I've found to real information from beyond the veil. It may also help to seek the purpose to everything, for everything has a purpose. For example the tsunami unleashed a worldwide wave of compassion. If you believe that thoughts have power (I do) then that event changed the world.

Dunno if that helps, but it's the best I can do at this hour.

Steve

[pianistimo]

from my perspective (not as a scholar, or even able reasoner) as a layperson, God sees many more things from where He is than we do.  if He can see wickedness and destroys it (evil with good sometimes - as lot had to flee sodom) maybe He is saving people from themselves.  we often read about child trafficking, many things that are evil in His sight - and yet, don't regard the lives that those children live (however long) is a horrible thing to endure.  we know percentages work because otherwise Abraham wouldn't have asked God to spare Sodom if a certain number of people were righteous.

isaiah 35 shows a time when the whole earth will be at peace and God will guide people - and show them the way to true peace and happiness.  "the wilderness and the desert shall be glad, and the desert shall blossom as a rose; like a crocus it will blossom profusely and rejoice with rejoicing and shout of joy...encourage the exhausted, and strengthen the feeble.  say to those with anxious heart, take courage, fear not.  behold, your God will come with a vengeance; the recompense of God will come, but He will save you.  then the eyes of the blind (those that can't see God) will be opened, and the ears of the deaf be unstopped, the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy...for waters will break forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert and the scorched land will become a pool and the thirsty ground springs of water."

if you've ever lived in the desert - or, perhaps been to the mideast - you can see that fertile soil is being replaced with sand.  people are forgetting the soil - how to plant, how to take care of the earth.  agriculture is not as important as industry.  if God made the earth - it is His anyway - to do with as He likes.  if He does something in our favor (good weather - good conditions) it is much like his verse "causing it to rain on the just and the injust."  just as calamaties befall everyone sometime or other too.  i guess what i'm trying to say is that whatever God does - it is simply unavoidable.  He is God.  He decides and if He decides something is good - then we can't really argue.  He might know a lot more - since He also knows how the demons operate and what is truly bad for us.  just as we protect our children from what we know will hurt them.

i think evil is the opposite of good.  evil is what satan wants us to believe is good.  and, that we inherently have eternal life within ourselves.  the pharoahs believed that and were buried with their goods.  i think evil is the personification of satan's frustration that he can't overtake God and do what he wants.  he is always held back by God's power.  God is in control and he wants to usurp the place of God.  so, he attacks mankind.  it has been that way since adam and eve.  if you watch closely some shows on tv - you'll see anaogies made with demons (disappearing, facial changes, reappearing) and as the time grows closer for Christ's return - a sort of acceptance of demons into our lives.  i think you have to actively acknowledge that they are there - that they can reach you throuh many media (whether television shows that stick in your mind, music, books, whatever gives you more ideas into evil).  we are told as christians to 'resist evil, and do what is good.'  so - if you are an athlete and are resisting some pressure - you actively push away.  turn off the tv when something is not uplifting.  turn down or off the music if you don't feel right.  get out of a situation if you are not where you feel you should be.  God always makes a way for you to 'escape.'  but, many people just stay in a situation and sometimes die in it.  seems that lately a lot of nightclubs have been targeted for structural problems, fires, shootings, a lot of things like that. 

[pianistimo]

something else that came to mind was that proving Satan exists might actually be just as easy as proving God exists.  if you visit a mental institution or even retirement homes where people are just left to 'deal' with problems and aren't treated or cared for - sometimes the despondency can be an opener for demons.  you realize you are not talking with a 'sane' person and very unusual things come out of their mouths.  things that you wouldn't consider a 'sane' person to say and do. 

how does one come to terms with a person like charles manson, for instance.  and, so many others that brutally kill people.  are they totally acting on their own behalf - or do the 'voices' that tell them to do this as real as their response that it was.  who do you believe and not believe.  the fact that our courts acknowledge that a person can be insane is proof to me that people DO go insane and are succeptible to another power.

how to protect yourself?  pray!  God has always one-upped Satan.  he actively even told him at times 'get behind me, Satan.'  if our Lord and Saviour did this - we, his children should be careful, too.  if you don't think someone is acting right or speaking right - you can command the demon in Jesus Name to leave - and surprisingly God allows them not to bother you.  He also said, some do not leave without fasting and prayer. that is why we have to remain close to God - because some demons don't want to leave.  they are like 'children' so to speak and without God making them leave a certain domain - they are stubborn.  prisons would be a good place to look for these. and, if you resist him 'he will flee from you.'

[randmc]

No one can really answer this question directly because there is no yes or no. It's really an opinion question, right? If it is, I think you should have phrased it "Do you believe in a God?" Choosing to believe in God or not is a personal choice; it's not something that's definitely there--that you can feel, touch, hear, smell, etc.. 'Yes', 'No', or 'Mu' would not be appropriate answers because some people believe in a God, and some don't. So how do you really answer this question?

[pianistimo]

are there angels?  that's another question.  angels that are working on God's behalf.  i think so - otherwise how do so many people explain stories of things that were miracles - where someone shows up unexpectedly to help them out of a situation.  i don't doubt that we all see angels at various times in our lives - and don't even recognize who they are.  they are mentioned as appearing as men - several times in the bible.  so - as i see it - just as there are demons working against us - we can CALL on God and CALL on his angels to protect us and care for us.  that is the angels job as i understand it - to protect us and our families in about any situation we can get ourselves into.

dear randmc,  i think nurses and prison wards would both say that they believe there is some force greater than us that is able to affect people's behavior.  i think they would say 'yes.'  otherwise, how do you explain lately the great interest they take in having 'prison ministries' which retrain people who have been sometimes 'possessed' to take rightful ownership of their own minds.  and, i believe that many turnarounds may happen in institutions such as this when people are cared about and prayed for.  God mentions that he wishes christian to visit those who are 'sick and in prison.'  why?  perhaps to give them a taste of God's spirit...which is in direct contrast and conflict with their own lives that have brought them DOWN. God's spirit brings you UP.  that's a yes to me.

[ted]

pantonality:

I cannot accept the two arguments you put forward. The first, the non-existence of both good and evil I find overly simple in the light of the common human experiences of pleasure and pain, kindness and cruelty and several other dualities.
The second proposition, that a group of people were cruelly exterminated to teach the rest of the world a lesson I find not only patently absurd but morally obnoxious. "Oh ! Nice !" , as Onslow says in Hyacinth Bucket.

pianistimo:

I appreciate your feelings are genuine and that you probably have a heart of gold but your replies have little to do with my objection.

[sarahlein]

So Ted, tell me if I understand you right.

You believe that God exists. However the presense of evil has let you to believe that he is uncaring and hardhearted.
You would be curious to see if there's a different reasoning that leads to a different conclusion however using the Bible as a basis to such a reasoning would not help- it may even put you off.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in any way.

[timothy42b]

No, I think Ted quite correctly stated one of the dilemmas that all deep thinkers have struggled with:  If God is omnipotent, what about evil?

People who dismiss this problem easily simply haven't understood it.  Others intuitively get near this - long ago I was fishing with my pastor and we got into some whitewater above our skill level, wrecked the canoe and lost all our gear, but were unharmed.  My very young child asked "How come God could save Daddy but not the canoe?"  Good question, and a facile answer does no good.

Some great thinkers have struggled with this.  One of the famous rabbis (Hillel, perhaps?) came to the conclusion that the best answer is probably that God is not in fact omnipotent.  Omnipotence is after all merely the way a human defines God, and is not necessarily binding on him. 

I'm out of time, maybe more later.

[Torp]

i think evil is the opposite of good.

Careful here, you're close to admitting that satan has equal powers to your god.  Otherwise you cannot have it be an opposite.

God has always one-upped Satan.

Evidence in the world would suggest otherwise.

[pianistimo]

well, as i understand it, satan is the god of THIS world.  and God is the God of the next kingdom to come.  so satan's power will be limited in the next, whereas he has been given more freedom now.  when eve chose the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil - she was in effect choosing satan to be her god (because she listened to him).

i understand the evil/good dilemma, though, in people's minds.  how can God allow satan to even exist.  as i understand it, he was made an angel of light.  but, in his own pride - he brought himself to think he was equal to God. 

some might think - why does God care.  i don't know how God became omnipotent, but i believe that since He has shared everything (including His Son dying for our sins) He can't be like satan who was a murderer from the beginning of our world as we know it and wishes for our death (because he knows that ONLY now he is above us).  when we are changed to be LIKE God (in His image) and the image of His Son...we will be 'sons and daughters of light' and not darkness.  we will have power over the angels whereas right now they are to look after us because they are more powerful than us.

[prometheus]

In the bible God and Lucifer are friends, or at least colleges. They seem to be on friendly terms.