When Literalists have to literally lie to sell their literal truth (AKA Adventures in Ark-itecture)

[Learner]

Well, it isn't either TV or a movie; It is a music vid.

And I thought I was being nonsensical...I have no idea what your views are of the fabled Deluge at this point...

Ah ok you were "watching" something else sorry about that. Seriously I best make the clarification and state my view is still the big flood according to the bible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ah ok you were "watching" something else sorry about that. Seriously I best make the clarification and state my view is still the big flood according to the bible.

So, just to be clear, your view is that, at some point in the past, there was a worldwide flood which lasted over a month and killed every human and animal on the planet except for a group of survivors which rode this flood out on a boat. All of the humans and animals alive today are the descendants of this one group of survivors from that boat.

Is that correct.

 

[Learner]

If you want to be different, why don't you try making a thesis statement, which shall establish what you are arguing.

As I've mentioned in previous post I'm still for the big flood, as a theist would obviously be, and admittedly I know it would be hard to argue the belief. Anyway that was a good post to read. Yes my eyebrows did raise when Lion mentioned everything would be swept away by such a flood it is interesting a proposal. I have to read up a little more research at the moment and discuss a little later (for the sake of discussion).

 

[Learner]

So, just to be clear, your view is that, at some point in the past, there was a worldwide flood which lasted over a month and killed every human and animal on the planet except for a group of survivors which rode this flood out on a boat. All of the humans and animals alive today are the descendants of this one group of survivors from that boat.

Is that correct.

I have to follow the bible as a Christian. I am personally unsure in all honesty of the details by literal interpretations regarding the flood in a global context.
I take the bible's word for it, so yes to your question.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, just to be clear, your view is that, at some point in the past, there was a worldwide flood which lasted over a month and killed every human and animal on the planet except for a group of survivors which rode this flood out on a boat. All of the humans and animals alive today are the descendants of this one group of survivors from that boat.

Is that correct.

I have to follow the bible as a Christian. I am personally unsure in all honesty of the details by literal interpretations regarding the flood in a global context.
I take the bible's word for it, so yes to your question.

Well, at least you're honest and straightforward with your beliefs and don't try to dance around committing to them like some do. I respect that.

Let me ask you, though. If you had never read the Bible, do you think that you would come to the same conclusion about a global flood? Events like that leave evidence and that evidence can be traced back to the inciting event. Things like migration and population patterns of the animals repopulating the Earth, the geological record indicating a cataclysmic event, etc. All the things that the non-flood believers look at to get a view of history. If you were looking at those in isolation from the Bible story, do you feel that you would come to the same conclusion about the flood and why?

 

[skepticalbip]

If you want to be different, why don't you try making a thesis statement, which shall establish what you are arguing.

As I've mentioned in previous post I'm still for the big flood, as a theist would obviously be, and admittedly I know it would be hard to argue the belief. Anyway that was a good post to read. Yes my eyebrows did raise when Lion mentioned everything would be swept away by such a flood it is interesting a proposal. I have to read up a little more research at the moment and discuss a little later (for the sake of discussion).

It really isn't true that Christians all accept everything in the Bible, including the Noah story, as literally true. A great many Christians cringe at those who do. As an example, the official Catholic church recognizes evolution as true and see the creationists as cringeworthy.

ETA:
In fact, I would guess there is much in the Bible that you do not accept literally like the requirements of stoning witches, blood sacrifice, killing disrespectful children, etc.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Its always fun to see the literalists try to deal with Biblical contradictions, stupidities, goofiness.

Almost as much fun as watching non-literalists trying to deal with these issues. Throwing out the contradictions, stupidities at al, while trying to keep the parts they like.

 

[skepticalbip]

Its always fun to see the literalists try to deal with Biblical contradictions, stupidities, goofiness.

Almost as much fun as watching non-literalists trying to deal with these issues. Throwing out the contradictions, stupidities at al, while trying to keep the parts they like.

Yeah, my question to the non-literalist Christians is how they know which parts to throw out and which to accept... and what if their choices are wrong.

Actually that could be asked to the literalists too since they don't actually accept everything, only the parts they like.

 

[Sarpedon]

As I've mentioned in previous post I'm still for the big flood, as a theist would obviously be, and admittedly I know it would be hard to argue the belief. Anyway that was a good post to read. Yes my eyebrows did raise when Lion mentioned everything would be swept away by such a flood it is interesting a proposal. I have to read up a little more research at the moment and discuss a little later (for the sake of discussion).

Not really a good thesis statement. A theist wouldn't 'obviously' be for the 'big flood.' As pointed out, not even every christian thinks that, much less every theist. It raises the question, why does your belief in a deity hang on believing this obvious fairy tale? Your misstatement here betrays some deeper issues.

While Lion's point is thought provoking, it does raise some other problems. Also, I recall now I have seen another theist make this point, though I dismissed it offhand at the time. I recall one of those frauds who claim to have discovered (and then lost again) Noah's ark on the mountainside, he was holding a bit of iron nail he claimed came from the ark. I harumphed and said to the TV, "Real archaeologists don't hold real 4,000 year old iron artifacts with their bare hands." so I overlooked it at the time. Another problem it causes for the literalists is the greater durability of iron and bronze artifacts. One of the things they have long argued is that literally everything before the flood was wiped out, leaving the sedimentation strata that give a false impression of the age of the world. Iron and bronze pre-flood artifacts would have thrown a wrench (hur hur hur) into this idea, as the bronze and iron tools would logically survivie and be preserved in the lowest sediment layers. As usual, religious people are just making things up as they go. When they are confronted with a new problem, they simply invent a new lie to counter it, not bothering, understanding, or even caring if it contradicts a previous lie. IF there was no ironworking before the ark, then the ark is impossible to build. IF there was ironworking before the ark, there'd be evidence remaining. See the dilemma?

 

[Learner]

It really isn't true that Christians all accept everything in the Bible, including the Noah story, as literally true. A great many Christians cringe at those who do. As an example, the official Catholic church recognizes evolution as true and see the creationists as cringeworthy.

Well I was really talking about myself. It has been asked of me a few times in other discussions for example "Do you say this for all Christians" or " What makes you think you follow the true Christian faith from the others?" We should by now understand that this would be quite logical to assume I was regarding myself. Sorry I didn't make it clear.

ETA:
In fact, I would guess there is much in the Bible that you do not accept literally like the requirements of stoning witches, blood sacrifice, killing disrespectful children, etc.

I do not like such violence including in the bible. That is not Jesus's way!

 

[Learner]

Its always fun to see the literalists try to deal with Biblical contradictions, stupidities, goofiness.

Almost as much fun as watching non-literalists trying to deal with these issues. Throwing out the contradictions, stupidities at al, while trying to keep the parts they like.

This is a great site and I'm glad you're having fun !

 

[Learner]

Yeah, my question to the non-literalist Christians is how they know which parts to throw out and which to accept... and what if their choices are wrong.

Actually that could be asked to the literalists too since they don't actually accept everything, only the parts they like.

I if not we, accept everything but not neccessarily like everything. I am assuming this is what you mean.

Now it maybe a "you say tomayto and I say tomarto" sort of thing. I have been having a few hiccups with the old comunicado.



(Just a quick pop in, will have to get back to you Tom and Sarp )

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yeah, my question to the non-literalist Christians is how they know which parts to throw out and which to accept... and what if their choices are wrong.

Actually that could be asked to the literalists too since they don't actually accept everything, only the parts they like.

I if not we, accept everything but not neccessarily like everything. I am assuming this is what you mean.

Now it maybe a "you say tomayto and I say tomarto" sort of thing. I have been having a few hiccups with the old comunicado.

So, if your kid talked back to you, you'd still gather the elders and stone him to death at the city gates, but just not feel good about it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well I was really talking about myself.

Well, you said that as a Christain, you have to believe the Flood story.
That's not true, for you or for all Christains.

Plenty of Christains accept the theory of evolution and the associated timeline, and just accept Genesis as an allegory. It's not crucial to their faith, so it's not an 'ofcourse' association.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah, my question to the non-literalist Christians is how they know which parts to throw out and which to accept... and what if their choices are wrong.

Actually that could be asked to the literalists too since they don't actually accept everything, only the parts they like.

I if not we, accept everything but not neccessarily like everything. I am assuming this is what you mean.

Now it maybe a "you say tomayto and I say tomarto" sort of thing. I have been having a few hiccups with the old comunicado.

You may accept and obey all the Biblical laws (even though you may not like them) but if law enforcement ever learn that you killed your children because they were disrespectful then you would be in a heap of trouble here on Earth even though you may believe you will be rewarded in heaven.

Personally, I know of no Christians (though there may be some) who follow all Biblical laws. I know of none who have sacrificed rams or any who have any qualms of worshiping in a church although the Bible requires sacrifice and directs followers to not build places of worship but instead to worship in open fields with a natural rock as an alter. There are hundreds of other laws not followed by Christians. Do you believe that there is hell in their future for ignoring and even condemning so many Biblical laws?

 

[funinspace]

So, just to be clear, your view is that, at some point in the past, there was a worldwide flood which lasted over a month and killed every human and animal on the planet except for a group of survivors which rode this flood out on a boat. All of the humans and animals alive today are the descendants of this one group of survivors from that boat.

Is that correct.

I have to follow the bible as a Christian. I am personally unsure in all honesty of the details by literal interpretations regarding the flood in a global context.
I take the bible's word for it, so yes to your question.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. No one knows everything, so it is fine that you are still trying to figure out how to fit this proverbial square peg thru the round hole.

A few thoughts on taking “the Bible’s word for it”. Absolutely no one takes the Bible’s word for things literally all the time.

People took the Bible’s word for it and defended a flat earth notion, and then later a geocentric universe. People took the Bible’s word for it, and thought lightening were daemons come to earth, until Ben Franklin shooed them away with science. Jesus is said to have told his followers to pluck out their eye if it sins, and cut hands and/or feet if they sin. Nothing within the associated sentences suggest it isn’t literal. The absurdity of the statement tells one that this is hyperbole; that and the reality that the Jesus of the Bible regularly used parables and hyperbole as a means of communication. Few Christian theologians take the book of Job as a historical tale. Then there are the books of poetry. I find it rather ironic that the 'God-breathed Bible' evangelicals are largely war mongers; and then there are Mennonites and Seventh-day Adventists who are largely pacifists; with both groups justifying their views via taking the Bible literally.

A favorite phrase of mine: What's the difference between liberal and 'God-breathed Bible literalist' Christians? The liberal Christians realize that they are in a cafeteria.

 

[Learner]

So, if your kid talked back to you, you'd still gather the elders and stone him to death at the city gates, but just not feel good about it?

I was saying I 'accepted' what was said in the bible was true and not liking things in it. This is in relation to accepting parts and leaving out parts of the bible .


(cont. later..still on a job)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, if your kid talked back to you, you'd still gather the elders and stone him to death at the city gates, but just not feel good about it?

I was saying I 'accepted' what was said in the bible was true and not liking things in it. This is in relation to accepting parts and leaving out parts of the bible .


(cont. later..still on a job)

I don't get what you mean when you say that you accept it but don't like it. Do you mean that you consider it to be a good thing (since it's the command of God) but you're not happy that it's a good thing? Stoning your kids to death for mouthing off to you is like eating your vegetables? You accept that they're healthy and part of a balanced diet but you don't like the taste and wish you could get the same vitamins and nutrients from potato chips and chocolate?

I'm not trying to sound dickish with that question, but that's how I read your response and I'm wondering if I understood you correctly.

 

[Learner]

I don't get what you mean when you say that you accept it but don't like it. Do you mean that you consider it to be a good thing (since it's the command of God) but you're not happy that it's a good thing? Stoning your kids to death for mouthing off to you is like eating your vegetables? You accept that they're healthy and part of a balanced diet but you don't like the taste and wish you could get the same vitamins and nutrients from potato chips and chocolate?

I'm not trying to sound dickish with that question, but that's how I read your response and I'm wondering if I understood you correctly.

I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!

 

[bigfield]

I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!

So in your personal version of Christianity, Jesus is not the god who did the flood, plagues, fire and brimstone, Pharoah's army?