Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 113

Thread: Noah's Ark Open For the World to See

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Bible we have today is many oral generations old and then a further many translations separated from the original story. Details change as they go from person to person. Units may be different as well. What was listed as a "year" for say Noah's life of 600 years may have been lunar months which would have him more like 50 when he died.

    They did find discrepancies between the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the height of the Goliath. That had him at about 6' 6" while some texts have him over nine feet tall so details have changed over time.

    http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/ex...-old-testament

    Details depend on who is telling the story. Some stories are also allegorical rather than historical- more important for their message than the small details. Jesus often used parables to give a message to the faithful. It was a common teaching method.
    Zip - i mean really, you're going with "the Bible can't be trusted" argument? What ridiculous hogwash. Old arguments that just don't hold water, pun intended, debunked many times over.

    The Bible is the most reliable ancient document in the world, period. No other ancient manuscripts hold a candle in terms of number of extant manuscripts, validation against other historical texts, archaeology, validation when compared against itself, internal validation, etc. No other document has been criticized as much and come through with shining colors as the Bible.

    If you throw this kind of silly doubt at the Bible, then you have nothing on which to base any view of ancient history, for the rest of antiquity is pieced together with the barest pieces of surviving literature, as compared to the treasure trove that is the mountain of flawless manuscripts of the Bible.

    By the way, Jesus reference Noah specifically, as did other New Testament writers. He's mentioned there as a man to admire. So yeah, if Jesus believed in the man who built the ark and, together with his family, survived the global flood, then so do I.

    Lastly - you don't have to just look at the Bible for evidence of a global flood. It's documented by various cultures around the world in ancient documents outside the Bible - or maybe you don't consider them reliable either.
    Last edited by georgiaboy; 07-12-2016 at 06:58 PM.
    The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.
    My new motto: More Love, Less Laws



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    It will be worth your time I promise.
    Joy. About half way through our Freshman year, my roommate fell into this religious cult and came home with all of Kent Hovind's videos with title like "Lies in the Textbooks" and about 200 pamphlets telling you that you would go to hell if you read anything other than the King James Bible. Unfortunately, I have watched all of "Dr." Hovind's videos multiple times.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiaboy View Post
    Zip - i mean really, you're going with "the Bible can't be trusted" argument? What ridiculous hogwash. Old arguments that just don't hold water, pun intended, debunked many times over.

    The Bible is the most reliable ancient document in the world, period. No other ancient manuscripts hold a candle in terms of number of extant manuscripts, validation against other historical texts, archaeology, validation when compared against itself, internal validation, etc. No other document has been criticized as much and come through with shining colors as the Bible.

    If you throw this kind of silly doubt at the Bible, then you have nothing on which to base any view of ancient history, for the rest of antiquity is pieced together with the barest pieces of surviving literature, as compared to the treasure trove that is the mountain of flawless manuscripts of the Bible.

    By the way, Jesus reference Noah specifically, as did other New Testament writers. He's mentioned there as a man to admire. So yeah, if Jesus believed in the man who built the ark and, together with his family, survived the global flood, then so do I.

    Lastly - you don't have to just look at the Bible for evidence of a global flood. It's documented by various cultures around the world in ancient documents outside the Bible - or maybe you don't consider them reliable either.
    Zippy is not Christian, so his opinion will be against the Bible. He thinks he is smarter than that.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  5. #64
    One can believe in the messages of the Bible without believing that every thing in it was literally true.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    This is just sad.

    I know many here believe the creation myth, and that's ok.

    But to celebrate scientific ignorance is something I feel compelled to speak about. The Earth is not 6000 years old. Sorry. I know your special book says otherwise, but math is math.

    Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?

    And BTW this particular myth is a ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh from many years before Noah.

    And people don't live to be 600 years old.

    And I own a trilobite fossil from 450 million years ago.

    What did the carnivores eat? The other animals on the ship?? lol

    And even scientists who are Christians have had to concede the fact that this 'story' is simply that.... a metaphor and a story. There was no flood. There was no ark.

    and this:
    Last edited by jllundqu; 07-13-2016 at 01:20 PM.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    This is just sad.

    I know many here believe the creation myth, and that's ok.

    But to celebrate scientific ignorance is something I feel compelled to speak about. The Earth is not 6000 years old. Sorry. I know your special book says otherwise, but math is math.

    Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?

    And BTW this particular myth is a ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh from many years before Noah.

    And people don't live to be 600 years old.

    And I own a trilobite fossil from 450 million years ago.

    What did the carnivores eat? The other animals on the ship?? lol

    And even scientists who are Christians have had to concede the fact that this 'story' is simply that.... a metaphor and a story. There was no flood. There was no ark.

    and this:
    Have you seen Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs? Because that's pretty much what was happening when the Hebrews were wandering in Sinai and getting bread from heaven. Did you hear the one about a virgin conceiving? Walking on water? Joshua asking God to stop the sun from moving? The 10 plagues of Egypt? How about the dude who brought a guy back from the dead after he'd already been buried for days and was decomposing, only later to bring himself back from the dead?

    Whenever I hear someone ask about things of minor miraculous consideration, I have to wonder if you are asking seriously, or if your intent is simply to mock. If your intent is to mock, why reach for such high fruit as what the animals on the ark ate, when there's far easier things to mock considering Noah actually could have fed the animals by simply stocking supplies and no miracle would actually be required.

    The entire intellectual debate presupposes the existence of an all-powerful God. I actually consider the moral objections to what God does, or moral objections to the world He created a much better starting point than the existence of miracles which are really childs play to a living God.

    But it seems no one is really interested in intellectual debate, but rather in mocking and separating themselves into "smarties" and "dummies". That's why the popular atheists are professional mockers like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Ricky Gervais, people who make them feel good about being an atheist rather than people who strengthen the argument behind being an atheist. Actual intellectual believers like Blaise Pascal, and Leo Tolstoy I guess are just looney tunes rather than dummies.

    As for your "math is math" thing, I actually answered this 6000 year dilemmna in post #57.

    As I said, moral questions are better starting point for intellectual debate, so the part of your post that actually interests me is the part where you say, "Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?"

    How can we judge God for doing what he wants with his creation? Especially considering he controls the soul as well as the body? His property, his law. What's more, Noah's flood is merciful compared to the explicit punishment God intends to deal out during the tribulation. But again there, we don't know what future life is in store for all those you and others consider victims.

    All this stems from the heathen understanding which can't get past "why would God allow suffering?" God not only allows it, he is the cause of it, and takes credit for it personally many times in scripture.

    The God of Abraham is not the feely good hippy that wants to be your friend no matter what and will give you everything you want as long as you worship him, and tells you that you'll live forever no matter what. That's the other guy.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    One can believe in the messages of the Bible without believing that every thing in it was literally true.
    The hardest thing to believe is the most important.

    John 6 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
    If you don't believe the central premise of the story, then saying you believe in "messages" and denying all the stories is just a manifestation of not believing in general.

    The story of Noah and the ark points to Christ. Noah's ark and the ark that held the tablets are linked and both refer to Christ. These stories are not accidents are not included by random chance telling some random history. Christ mentions Noah, and Lot, and Jonah in the fish.

    Point is, Christ being who he says he is and come to do what he says he came to do, is far more earth shattering than a flooded earth or a guy stuck in a whale. If you believe in Christ, sure lets discuss how the reality Noah's Ark might be possible, but if you aren't a believer in the most amazing revelation of the bible, the Lamb of God, what's the point in discussing the reality of the less amazing revelations like a bunch of water and animals on a boat?
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Have you seen Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs? Because that's pretty much what was happening when the Hebrews were wandering in Sinai and getting bread from heaven. Did you hear the one about a virgin conceiving? Walking on water? Joshua asking God to stop the sun from moving? The 10 plagues of Egypt? How about the dude who brought a guy back from the dead after he'd already been buried for days and was decomposing, only later to bring himself back from the dead?

    Whenever I hear someone ask about things of minor miraculous consideration, I have to wonder if you are asking seriously, or if your intent is simply to mock. If your intent is to mock, why reach for such high fruit as what the animals on the ark ate, when there's far easier things to mock considering Noah actually could have fed the animals by simply stocking supplies and no miracle would actually be required.

    The entire intellectual debate presupposes the existence of an all-powerful God. I actually consider the moral objections to what God does, or moral objections to the world He created a much better starting point than the existence of miracles which are really childs play to a living God.

    But it seems no one is really interested in intellectual debate, but rather in mocking and separating themselves into "smarties" and "dummies". That's why the popular atheists are professional mockers like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Ricky Gervais, people who make them feel good about being an atheist rather than people who strengthen the argument behind being an atheist. Actual intellectual believers like Blaise Pascal, and Leo Tolstoy I guess are just looney tunes rather than dummies.

    As for your "math is math" thing, I actually answered this 6000 year dilemmna in post #57.

    As I said, moral questions are better starting point for intellectual debate, so the part of your post that actually interests me is the part where you say, "Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?"

    How can we judge God for doing what he wants with his creation? Especially considering he controls the soul as well as the body? His property, his law. What's more, Noah's flood is merciful compared to the explicit punishment God intends to deal out during the tribulation. But again there, we don't know what future life is in store for all those you and others consider victims.

    All this stems from the heathen understanding which can't get past "why would God allow suffering?" God not only allows it, he is the cause of it, and takes credit for it personally many times in scripture.

    The God of Abraham is not the feely good hippy that wants to be your friend no matter what and will give you everything you want as long as you worship him, and tells you that you'll live forever no matter what. That's the other guy.
    The OP was about the Ark... so yes, ALL the supposed 'miracles' in the bible I think are BS and I could spend all day talking about why I've come to that conclusion.

    Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so. I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.

    And you spelled it out exactly correct. To a Christian, god owns you. "His property, His Law" This is a celestial north korea IMO. In your view, god made me sick (sin) and commands me to be well under penalty of eternal torture. That is no God I would want to believe in.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    The OP was about the Ark... so yes, ALL the supposed 'miracles' in the bible I think are BS and I could spend all day talking about why I've come to that conclusion.

    Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so. I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.

    And you spelled it out exactly correct. To a Christian, god owns you. "His property, His Law" This is a celestial north korea IMO. In your view, god made me sick (sin) and commands me to be well under penalty of eternal torture. That is no God I would want to believe in.
    God's law is that you reap what you sow. I don't believe in eternal torture because you can't sow anything to deserve it.

    You will die if you don't believe in Christ. For certain. Many will die that do. But all get resurrected, albeit in different ways. This teaching that if you don't believe in Christ you suffer eternally is a blasphemy of the truth perpetuated by false teachers.

    Simpler given the proliferation of false teaching to stick with "reap what you sow" for people who are mostly familiar and offended by polluted doctrine.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so. I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.
    If you don't believe in a living God, I would consider you an atheist. A lot of people these days seem to thing Eastern philosophy and mysticism disqualifies them as an atheist. But Buddhists and Taoists are still atheists if they don't believe in God. Netiher Buddhism nor Taoism presuppose or exclude belief in a God. You can practice Buddhism and still be a Christian or an atheist.

    God has a specific meaning.

    Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

    Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    So if you are not an atheist, if that is "not so" as you say, then what is the name of your God?
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    If you don't believe in a living God, I would consider you an atheist. A lot of people these days seem to thing Eastern philosophy and mysticism disqualifies them as an atheist. But Buddhists and Taoists are still atheists if they don't believe in God. Netiher Buddhism nor Taoism presuppose or exclude belief in a God. You can practice Buddhism and still be a Christian or an atheist.

    God has a specific meaning.

    Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

    Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    So if you are not an atheist, if that is "not so" as you say, then what is the name of your God?
    I would say I fall squarely into the Deist camp, ala Thomas Jefferson. There is a God... but he (it?) most certainly doesn't intervene in human affairs.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I would say I fall squarely into the Deist camp, ala Thomas Jefferson. There is a God... but he (it?) most certainly doesn't intervene in human affairs.
    I do love to talk about this stuff, but I feel we're getting away from Noah's ark discussion into more general religious questions, and I'd rather not pollute Theocrat's thread, especially since he made a point not to put it in Peace Through Religion Subforum. Glad to move discussion over there if you want to bump one of those old threads, but I think I'll stop on this one now. Thanx!
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    How can he not?
    Easy-hugs are benevolent and good for you! ~hugs~
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #74

    Without Being Too Technical...

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    The OP was about the Ark... so yes, ALL the supposed 'miracles' in the bible I think are BS and I could spend all day talking about why I've come to that conclusion.

    Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so. I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.

    And you spelled it out exactly correct. To a Christian, god owns you. "His property, His Law" This is a celestial north korea IMO. In your view, god made me sick (sin) and commands me to be well under penalty of eternal torture. That is no God I would want to believe in.
    I'm just curious as to whether or not you've visited the Ark Encounter yet. Ken Ham is one of the world's most renown scholars on "Noah's Ark" and the Genesis account of the global flood. I'm sure that many of your objections and questions can be answered just by visiting the Ark Encounter and seriously considering the information provided, using assumptions of your creationist opponents.

    But therein lies the dilemma. You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science. That assumption, itself, is not based on the methodologies of the natural sciences, though; it is a philosophical assertion based on one's beliefs about metaphysical realities. The reason why that's important to grasp is because all evidences are interpreted by a person's philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. It's not that we creationists do not have evidence that can be shown scientifically to support a global flood; it's just that evolutionists have a counter assumption on what the nature of evidence ought to be about such things.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science.
    This is a reasonable assumption, because the alternative (that there are supernatural explanations or that we're just brains in vats) means we cannot predict anything with any degree of certainty. Will the sun appear to rise in the east tomorrow? Maybe not -- God might cause the earth to stop rotating as He allegedly did in Joshua 10:13 and suspend the laws of physics such that the calamitous results of such an action didn't occur. Will a child die without a blood transfusion? Maybe not -- God might cure him, so there's no need to resort to a medical technique that allegedly violates His Word. Should I bet half of my assets on a 1000-1 underdog in a sporting event? Maybe so -- after all, didn't God cause the US Olympic hockey team to defeat the godless Soviets in 1980?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Easy-hugs are benevolent and good for you! ~hugs~
    Just be careful not to get any HTDs
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    I'm just curious as to whether or not you've visited the Ark Encounter yet. Ken Ham is one of the world's most renown scholars on "Noah's Ark" and the Genesis account of the global flood. I'm sure that many of your objections and questions can be answered just by visiting the Ark Encounter and seriously considering the information provided, using assumptions of your creationist opponents.

    But therein lies the dilemma. You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science. That assumption, itself, is not based on the methodologies of the natural sciences, though; it is a philosophical assertion based on one's beliefs about metaphysical realities. The reason why that's important to grasp is because all evidences are interpreted by a person's philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. It's not that we creationists do not have evidence that can be shown scientifically to support a global flood; it's just that evolutionists have a counter assumption on what the nature of evidence ought to be about such things.
    I am a simple man. I am not an atheist, more of a deist. I came to my beliefs by actually studying and reading the bible. All the supernatural mumbo jumbo in the bible, especially the old testament, is just silly to me as a thinking person. God-sanctioned mass murder, genocide, rape, etc.?? Virgin births, raising the dead, living to be 600 yrs old... to me it is literally no different than people who believe Thor made the world with his hammer or Zeus casting lightning bolts from Mt. Olympus... Iron age myths that MAN created to explain what science hadn't figured out yet. Did God send a plague because a certain group wouldn't prostrate themselves accordingly? No, we now know with certainty how diseases are spread. Did God cause the solar eclipse? No, we know with certainty the physics of our solar system. Did God cause the earthquake because he was angry? No, we know with certainty the movement of tectonic plates and geological formation. Almost everywhere people used to invoke deity, we now know and have a scientific explanation for. The YEC crowd is such a dwindling minority because it makes no sense to take your cues on geology, physics, plate tectonics, microbiology, and the like from a bunch of near-illiterate peasants from 2000 years ago who knew nothing about it.

    For me, God has to fit into the natural world, not the other way around. If I can do a simple experiment to determine the trilobite fossil I own is 450-million years old, EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is necessary to convince me it is 6000 years old. Pointing to Genesis and Ham's Ark is not extraordinary proof, it's a joke.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I am a simple man. I am not an atheist, more of a deist. I came to my beliefs by actually studying and reading the bible. All the supernatural mumbo jumbo in the bible, especially the old testament, is just silly to me as a thinking person. God-sanctioned mass murder, genocide, rape, etc.?? Virgin births, raising the dead, living to be 600 yrs old... to me it is literally no different than people who believe Thor made the world with his hammer or Zeus casting lightning bolts from Mt. Olympus... Iron age myths that MAN created to explain what science hadn't figured out yet. Did God send a plague because a certain group wouldn't prostrate themselves accordingly? No, we now know with certainty how diseases are spread. Did God cause the solar eclipse? No, we know with certainty the physics of our solar system. Did God cause the earthquake because he was angry? No, we know with certainty the movement of tectonic plates and geological formation. Almost everywhere people used to invoke deity, we now know and have a scientific explanation for. The YEC crowd is such a dwindling minority because it makes no sense to take your cues on geology, physics, plate tectonics, microbiology, and the like from a bunch of near-illiterate peasants from 2000 years ago who knew nothing about it.

    For me, God has to fit into the natural world, not the other way around.
    If I can do a simple experiment to determine the trilobite fossil I own is 450-million years old, EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is necessary to convince me it is 6000 years old. Pointing to Genesis and Ham's Ark is not extraordinary proof, it's a joke.
    If God has to conform to your (very limited-as any scientist will admit) possible understanding of the universe, He's not really God. That would be an anthropomorphized deity with numerous human flaws like Zeus. Yes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    If God has to conform to your (very limited-as any scientist will admit) possible understanding of the universe, He's not really God. That would be an anthropomorphized deity with numerous human flaws like Zeus. Yes?
    To your point. If God is timeless and all-knowing and all-powerful... how would anyone know it? Do you have some inside information that I am not privy to? Do you really trust the second-hand tales of people that lived 2000 years ago? How do you not require at least some measure of verification as to your belief system. At least in mine, I have scientific evidence, backed by basic math, to inform my beliefs, which are not atheistic, but my beliefs MUST incorporate verifiable and repeatable scientific facts such as the geological age of the Earth, the origins of life, the age of the universe, etc.

    Question: If you were born in India, and raised as a Hindu, would you not believe as a Hindu? Same for muslim countries or whatever. It's all arbitrary and based on archaic writings and not one single piece of verifiable evidence save some hearsay and second-hand accounts.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    To your point. If God is timeless and all-knowing and all-powerful... how would anyone know it?
    The same way anyone knows anything-epistemology. Mine happens to be Eastern Orthodox. Yours is the Cult Of Science. To each his own.


    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Do you have some inside information that I am not privy to?
    Depends. A lot of literature I like is obscure in the West, but it's readily available on amazon and so on.


    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Do you really trust the second-hand tales of people that lived 2000 years ago?
    If you mean the classical literature of the Toarah, Tanakh, and Wisdom literature, it's a big mix of literary genres. Some is literally true, some are fiction with Wisdom to them(like Tobit) but all of it foreshadows the NT-which is full of literal Truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    How do you not require at least some measure of verification as to your belief system. At least in mine, I have scientific evidence, backed by basic math, to inform my beliefs, which are not atheistic, but my beliefs MUST incorporate verifiable and repeatable scientific facts such as the geological age of the Earth, the origins of life, the age of the universe, etc.
    The biblical canon is one of the best studied and best sourced in human history. Certainly the best understood in antiquity.

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Question: If you were born in India, and raised as a Hindu, would you not believe as a Hindu? Same for muslim countries or whatever. It's all arbitrary and based on archaic writings and not one single piece of verifiable evidence save some hearsay and second-hand accounts.
    You should take a course on Biblical literature. You don't really understand what you're talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    To your point. If God is timeless and all-knowing and all-powerful... how would anyone know it? Do you have some inside information that I am not privy to? Do you really trust the second-hand tales of people that lived 2000 years ago? How do you not require at least some measure of verification as to your belief system. At least in mine, I have scientific evidence, backed by basic math, to inform my beliefs, which are not atheistic, but my beliefs MUST incorporate verifiable and repeatable scientific facts such as the geological age of the Earth, the origins of life, the age of the universe, etc.

    Question: If you were born in India, and raised as a Hindu, would you not believe as a Hindu? Same for muslim countries or whatever. It's all arbitrary and based on archaic writings and not one single piece of verifiable evidence save some hearsay and second-hand accounts.
    You say in a couple posts before this, you are a deist. Deism is not based on scientific observation. It's a reasoned conclusion. Christianity is no less a reasoned conclusion.

    You seem to think that "scientific evidence" or obvervation has a lot to do with someone's metaphysical beliefs, but it really doesn't. Theocrat tried to point this out to you when talking about working assumptions.

    Even if the God of Abraham was standing right in front of you, how would he change your beliefs? What "proof" could he give you of His reality that you could not claim was a trick or a deception by an evil agent "pretending" to be God? Indeed this is precisely what occurred to Christ according to scripture.

    This generation will have an even harder time believing during the apocalypse than during Christ's time. For then they said, "who but God could do such things?" But our scientific understanding has progressed to such an extent that many will imagine other sources for the power that God displays. Aliens, mutations, secret government technology, etc. Not only has scientific understanding increased but so has knowledge of the Word of God, and thus when things start happening, the reality of the God of Abraham is the last thing any "thinking man" will want to believe. It will be a source of dread and fear.

    Because "thinking men" think God is a murderous psycho who drowns babies and crucifies his Son for abstract reasons. The "kid with the magnifying glass" analogy doesn't really go far enough. People's rejection of Christianity has caused them to most remember and point out the things about the Father that are scary and repulsive at first glance. Which will only increase the dread and fear when the 6th seal is opened and all signs point to that Being as the culprit.

    Anyway, that's the way it's meant to be really. Not called the "Terrible Day of the Lord" for nothing.


    I digress..

    This is why it is necessary to seek the truth sincerely with a clear mind and without an agenda. Not that you aren't, mind you, but realize it also says that no one comes to believe in Christ unless drawn by the Father.

    Why? Is God a douchey butthole that purposely keeps people seeking the truth away from the real truth "out of spite"?

    I like to think of it, especially in these last days, in the way Jesus saw the blind man he cured. His disciples asked him when they saw the blind man, "Who sinned to make this man blind? Him or his fathers?", because it is written that God also punishes children to the third and fourth generation for the sins of the fathers. But Jesus said, "Neither, but he is blind so that the glory of God can be revealed." Then he cures his blindness, and it causes quite a scandal.

    It is my belief that there are many sincere seekers out there that are kept from the truth of Christ for the same reason this blind man was made blind. So that in the end times God is glorified in them when they come to believe when all the things come to pass.

    "And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes."

    "Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."

    Anyway, don't focus so much on "scientific verification". That's only useful for comparing theories about states of matter, future and past. Reason, truth, and moral matters are on another field entirely and trying to discredit the latter via the former shows lack of understanding.

    One can never really give a proof of the reality of anything; reality is not something open to proof, it is something established. It is established just because proof is not enough. It is this characteristic of language, at once indispensable and inadequate, which shows the reality of the external world. - Simone Weil
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  26. #82

    Bent Rocks (they're a problem)

    Believers in 'the Flood'
    are believers in 'Catastrophism'
    (that 'what we see' in Geology/Fossil Record is the result of Catastrophic influence and impact.. i.e. the 'flood'/massive hydrologic forces
    and
    that they would necessarily have had to 'happen' ALL AT ONCE)

    the opposing view
    necessarily rejects it (it MUST reject it)
    and is called 'Uniformitarianism' and here is its definition:
    It states that current geologic processes,
    occurring at the same rates observed today,
    in the same manner,
    account for all of Earth's geological features.

    Something as simple as this
    is a problem for them: Bent Sedimentary Rocks... all across the earth.

    Last edited by goldenequity; 07-14-2016 at 10:23 PM.

  27. #83
    lol The Bible kicks ass.

    The Fall of Man

    1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.


    Did God really say? Oldest trick in the Book.

    What is supposed to be the advantage to a Christian like me or others, to limiting my God's power? What is reasonable about that to a Christian who is not of this world and realizes that the Word divides and brings conflict (naturally), yet the Word also gives an individual peace?

    Are the "advantages" similar to not believing in 100% liberty, or maybe not believing in 100% non-aggression?

    Fallen Man: God? An all powerful God? Derp, I'm going to give into my rebellious nature and "rebel" some more, here's an idea for a less powerful god, I think it will help with humility derp, you should be "reasonable" and give it a try.

    God: Uh, thanks for proving my point

    Fallen Man: Wait a minute! Prove your point? I'm talking translations and $#@!! "Proving your point" is just a literary trick for my actions to prove your point!

    God: I understand you like to limit the idea of peace, liberty, and love as well... now that's a real trick, -Hey man.

    Fallen Man: Yeah, what?

    God: "Rebellion" -you're doing it wrong.

    Fallen Man:








    Limiting everything and anything pertaining to righteous ideas, is what fallen man has ever been all about, right from the beginning.
    Hillary, Trump, and Johnson is the biggest flippin' clue in my lifetime.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  28. #84

    Polystrate Trees (they're a problem)

    Uniformitarianism approximates sedimentary layers 'form'
    at the 'approximate rate' of about 1 cm per 1,000 years.
    Some of these trees extend through 30 feet of sediment.
    That's a problem.






  29. #85
    I'm going to listen to the video tonight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    Uniformitarianism approximates sedimentary layers 'form'
    at the 'approximate rate' of about 1 cm per 1,000 years.
    Some of these trees extend through 30 feet of sediment.
    That's a problem.





    Yes, catastrophism. Mortal man isn't really big on accepting his lack of control, many exploit this.

    My 7th & 8th grade teacher was from Washington state, and we got to explore catastrophism relating to the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. The realization of many logs getting "heavy" and sinking on one end was amazing for this kid.
    In 35+ years, it's really the only place I've come across this tree thing, without actively seeking it out.



    If anyone has been exposed to the "sinking trees" in their lifetime, without actively seeking it, I'd like to know. Curious.
    Am I the only mushroom?
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  31. #87
    If the Earth is 6,000 years old, the Garden of Eden must have been in Sweden. http://www.boredpanda.com/worlds-old...tjikko-sweden/

    9,500-Year-Old Tree Found in Sweden Is The World’s Oldest Tree

    The world’s oldest tree, a 9,500-year-old Norwegian Spruce named “Old Tjikko,” after Professor Leif Kullman’s Siberian husky, continues to grow in Sweden. Discovered in 2004 by Kullman, professor of Physical Geography at Umeå University, the age of the tree was determined using carbon-14 dating.
    “During the ice age sea level was 120 meters lower than today and much of what is now the North Sea in the waters between England and Norway was at that time forest,” Professor Kullman told Aftonbladet. Winds and low temperatures made Old Tjikko “like a bonsai tree…Big trees cannot get as old as this.”

  32. #88

    What is at the Core of Our Assumptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    This is a reasonable assumption, because the alternative (that there are supernatural explanations or that we're just brains in vats) means we cannot predict anything with any degree of certainty. Will the sun appear to rise in the east tomorrow? Maybe not -- God might cause the earth to stop rotating as He allegedly did in Joshua 10:13 and suspend the laws of physics such that the calamitous results of such an action didn't occur. Will a child die without a blood transfusion? Maybe not -- God might cure him, so there's no need to resort to a medical technique that allegedly violates His Word. Should I bet half of my assets on a 1000-1 underdog in a sporting event? Maybe so -- after all, didn't God cause the US Olympic hockey team to defeat the godless Soviets in 1980?
    You've missed my point, though. The assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences is not scientifically-based; that statement is based on a person's precommitment to the philosophy of naturalism. How can you prove the validity and reliability of that assumption from the natural sciences, Sonny Tufts? You simply cannot do so without begging the question.

    In the natural sciences, the principle of induction is used, that is, reasoning from past experiences to explain present and future phenomena or making inferences from particular cases to a general case. However, naturalism cannot account for the use of induction in the natural sciences because it always takes for granted causation without a rational reason for appealing to it, especially in a universe that is supposedly always evolving. In fact, atheist philosophers such as the 18th Century philosopher David Hume, denied causation on the grounds that whenever it is assumed, it is based on experience, which begs the question, causing one to reason circularly. Thus, Hume denied causation, and in so doing, he undermined the principle of induction, without which, natural science cannot be possible.

    So, if one denies that supernatural explanations cannot be allowed in the natural sciences, then, ultimately, they are left with the alternative to reject the principle of induction. And if one rejects induction, then one cannot study the natural sciences. Naturalism (with its assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences) gives us no foundation to trust the laws in nature nor to appeal to the predictability of natural phenomena. The only way naturalists can be successful in the natural sciences, then, is to borrow assumptions about nature from supernaturalism, which in this case, is the Christian worldview.

    When you say that appealing to supernatural explanations leaves us with no certainty about the predicting anything in nature, and then, for an example, question whether the sun might rise in the east tomorrow (because God made the sun and moon stand still once), you need to realize what you're assuming about God. In Scripture, God doesn't cause miracles to happen in nature arbitrarily, for He always has a revealed explanation of their use, which is to vindicate His messenger or His people as belonging to Himself before witnesses. Otherwise, we can accept the reliability of the laws of nature because they are established by an unchanging God. In fact, all of the scientists who established the scientific disciplines that we enjoy today were creationists, so God's use of miracles was no problem for them in their studies and successes in the natural sciences.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89

    Evidences are Always Interpreted by Worldviews

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    For me, God has to fit into the natural world, not the other way around. If I can do a simple experiment to determine the trilobite fossil I own is 450-million years old, EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is necessary to convince me it is 6000 years old. Pointing to Genesis and Ham's Ark is not extraordinary proof, it's a joke.
    Thank you for proving my point. What you've confessed above "gives the game away." You won't accept any evidence until God is described by the natural world, but, once again, you need to understand that the demand, "God has to fit into the natural world," cannot, itself, be verified by the methods used in the natural sciences. In effect, you are appealing to a non-scientific concept in order to make your own assertion about what God has to be. So, you're not refuting any evidence that proves there was a global flood; you're simply stating the basis on which you believe evidences of God's work must be established, in accordance with your Deist assumptions about the nature of God.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    The assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences is not scientifically-based; that statement is based on a person's precommitment to the philosophy of naturalism.
    I never said it was scientifically based; I simply said it's a reasonable assumption. Any further assumption of a supernatural explanation would violate Occam's Razor -- it is unnecessary. This is reminiscient of the apocryphal story of the French scientist Pierre Simon Laplace, who upon presenting Napoleon with a copy of his work on celestial mechanics was asked by the Emperor why he had not mentioned God anywhere in the work. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

    In the natural sciences, the principle of induction is used, that is, reasoning from past experiences to explain present and future phenomena or making inferences from particular cases to a general case. However, naturalism cannot account for the use of induction in the natural sciences because it always takes for granted causation without a rational reason for appealing to it, especially in a universe that is supposedly always evolving. In fact, atheist philosophers such as the 18th Century philosopher David Hume, denied causation on the grounds that whenever it is assumed, it is based on experience, which begs the question, causing one to reason circularly. Thus, Hume denied causation, and in so doing, he undermined the principle of induction, without which, natural science cannot be possible.
    Yet Hume, you, and everyone else on the planet relies on induction and behaves as if causation exists. If I were to drop a 50 pound weight right above your foot, would you, Hume, or anyone else not draw your foot back? Ask yourself why you would behave in this manner if causation doesn't exist and induction is unreliable.

    So, if one denies that supernatural explanations cannot be allowed in the natural sciences, then, ultimately, they are left with the alternative to reject the principle of induction.
    This doesn't follow at all. The assumption that there's an external reality that we can observe and reason about doesn't require the further assumption of a supernatural cause that validates our sense experience.

    we can accept the reliability of the laws of nature because they are established by an unchanging God.
    That is your unprovable assumption. It's also a bit inconsistent, given that the God depicted in the Old Testament is much different than the one in the New Testament. The God who would command us to "love thy neighbor as thyself" would hardly have ordered the genocides in the OT.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •