• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Assuming THE FLOOD Did Happen . . .

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don't see that we are assuming the flood happened
instead a discussion to say it did

so if it did happen.....and assuming it did

was it the Hand of God?
and the intent was to kill all but a few?

I believe as job said: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
They were around after the "global flood" as well. Some creationists claim that's because Noah's daughters-in-law carried the gene for the Nephilim.

I believe that is a rationale to justify a global flood concept. There is no evidence that the Adamic race had much more than Adamic genes. There is a suggestion that the Adamic women got it on with the sons of the gods though.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
. . . what did it accomplish?

From the way things went afterwards---sin still remaining high on the lists of a lot of people, and rampant throughout the world---it seems to me the whole operation was a waste of life, good water, and gopher wood. :shrug:
.

It doesn't matter if the Bible is the literal word of God or absolute fact. The essential message of the Bible remains. And that message is having morality and being moral is important. What difference does it make what the topic of the STORY may be. Stories are just stories.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
It's perfectly OK to have your mind made up as long as you have considered both sides of an issue carefully.

On the subject of evolution verses creation, I do not see one side having any more real evidence than the other. Both are faith based and dependent on belief. If you don't think so, then you have not truly evaluated the validity of the "evidence".

On the natter of one faith verses another, or verses no faith at all....the same applies. As I see it, we all just choose our belief system....wchih means that we all choose what to believe and who to believe.

Why do you think evolution is "faith based"?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I believe that is a rationale to justify a global flood concept. There is no evidence that the Adamic race had much more than Adamic genes. There is a suggestion that the Adamic women got it on with the sons of the gods though.

The Nephilim are central to the mythos of Sumer and Babylon. Marduke and the Annunaki ? Have you read Sitchins? I would never have run across this except a friend of mine was working on a screenplay about the Annunaki.

The whole thing is fun but rather preposterous. In any case.. some Christians claim that the purpose of Noah's flood was to drown the Nephilim, but the Nephilim (Giants) show up much later in the OT stories.. as in POST FLOOD.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why do you think evolution is "faith based"?

From my experience creationists do not understand the science. They can't afford to let themselves understand the science. For them to accept it they would have to operate on faith. They then make the mistake of assuming that since it would be faith for them it would be faith for everyone.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I believe as job said: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

Ah so desu ka. the lord gave a flood, but took
away every last trace of it.

It makes sense, if he left signs, that would be
proof of god, and he dont do that.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
From my experience creationists do not understand the science. They can't afford to let themselves understand the science. For them to accept it they would have to operate on faith. They then make the mistake of assuming that since it would be faith for them it would be faith for everyone.

Science isn't an easy study.. I flunked chemistry TWICE.. and I come from a family of chemical engineers from Ga Tech, MIT and Harvard... Imagine my dilemma? I excelled in literature, history and the arts and didn't catch up with the demanding sciences until I was 30.

So I am somewhat sympathetic to the creationists... They just never had a chance, They are easy prey.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Why do you think evolution is "faith based"?

My guess is, they dont know any better.
They think all the actual evidence, and common sense
as well as the laws of physics etc, prove it cannot
be true.
So all one has to go on is faith.

Makes it simple-My faith, based on GAWD, and
the BIBLE and a billion fellow believers, and
all the evidence and and and

v

YOUR faith which is based at best on nothing,
but is usually a rebellion against GAWD.
At the behest of SATAN.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Science isn't an easy study.. I flunked chemistry TWICE.. and I come from a family of chemical engineers from Ga Tech, MIT and Harvard... Imagine my dilemma? I excelled in literature, history and the arts and didn't catch up with the demanding sciences until I was 30.

So I am somewhat sympathetic to the creationists... They just never had a chance, They are easy prey.

There is for sure a connection between income / education /
social status, and creationism. You dont get a lot of
fundies at Harvard, nor Harvard people in the trailer parks

Along comes a religion that shows them how they are
morally, spiritually better than them fancy pants
evolutuionsits, who will soon be sorry, while they
will be on that glory bound train.

 

sooda

Veteran Member
There is for sure a connection between income / education /
social status, and creationism. You dont get a lot of
fundies at Harvard, nor Harvard people in the trailer parks


Along comes a religion that shows them how they are
morally, spiritually better than them fancy pants
evolutuionsits, who will soon be sorry, while they
will be on that glory bound train.


Sweet Jesus.. you are bright as a new penny.

Teaching creation science HURTS our children and is NOT germaine to faith or morality.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sweet Jesus.. you are bright as a new penny.

Teaching creation science HURTS our children and is NOT germaine to faith or morality.

Disirregarding your rather odd comment about pennies,
you are of course correct about the harm done by
teaching creoism.

It is a dangerous indulgence that the USA can
ill afford, while not very far away, there are
swarming millions of very bright, hard working,
ambitious people who will be more than happy
to take what the fat Americans are too lazy
to hold on to.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
It doesn't matter if the Bible is the literal word of God or absolute fact. The essential message of the Bible remains. And that message is having morality and being moral is important. What difference does it make what the topic of the STORY may be. Stories are just stories.
It's important because it throws doubt on everything else in the Bible. Knowing that the flood account was just a story, the Tower of Babel was just a story, the talking serpent in the garden was just a story, David slaying Goliath was just a story, etc. etc. why should one believe the Jesus account was not just a story?

I'll tell you why. People NEED the account to be true, and NEED trumps everything else.

.

.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
It's important because it throws doubt on everything else in the Bible. Knowing that the flood account was just a story, the Tower of Babel was just a story, the talking serpent in the garden was just a story, David slaying Goliath was just a story, etc. etc. why should one believe the Jesus account was not just a story?

I'll tell you why. People NEED the account to be true, and NEED trumps everything else.

.

.

Seriously.

As for And that message is having morality and being moral is important.

Who needs a bible full of archaic language and phony
stories for that? Every society on earth teaches
morality.

 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Why do you think evolution is "faith based"?

If you read the results of the evidence that is examined by men of science, you quickly see by the language used, that it is mostly based on assumptions and speculations and then suggestions as to why the evidence points in that direction. It is always interpreted according to the theory, not the other way around. So if you have scientists who are Bible believers, then the evidence will point in the direction of Intelligent Design.

When pressed to provide the proof of their findings, you are soon informed that science has no "proof", just "evidence"....so if the evidence requires no proof, then it must require faith. Those are the only two options.

Its the same with the Bible...interpretation is everything. All have the same book, but all put their own slant on things assuming that the doctrines adopted by the church in the early centuries were taught by Christ. Most of them were never taught by Jesus or the apostles in the first place, and were never among the teachings given to the Jews in their scripture. Since all of the first Christians were Jewish, and the only scripture they had was the OT, it stands to reason that when doctrines were introduced into the church in those early centuries, (i.e. the trinity, immortality of the soul and a hell of fiery torment, among others introduced by the RCC) they must of necessity have come from outside of God's word, inferred in ambiguous verses.

All can be traced back to ancient Babylon in fact.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you read the results of the evidence that is examined by men of science, you quickly see by the language used, that it is mostly based on assumptions and speculations and then suggestions as to why the evidence points in that direction. It is always interpreted according to the theory, not the other way around. So if you have scientists who are Bible believers, then the evidence will point in the direction of Intelligent Design.

When pressed to provide the proof of their findings, you are soon informed that science has no "proof", just "evidence"....so if the evidence requires no proof, then it must require faith. Those are the only two options.

Its the same with the Bible...interpretation is everything. All have the same book, but all put their own slant on things assuming that the doctrines adopted by the church in the early centuries were taught by Christ. Most of them were never taught by Jesus or the apostles in the first place, and were never among the teachings given to the Jews in their scripture. Since all of the first Christians were Jewish, and the only scripture they had was the OT, it stands to reason that when doctrines were introduced into the church in those early centuries, (i.e. the trinity, immortality of the soul and a hell of fiery torment, among others introduced by the RCC) they must of necessity have come from outside of God's word, inferred in ambiguous verses.

All can be traced back to ancient Babylon in fact.
No Deeje, the language tells you that they do not leap to unjustified conclusions and even when something is clear they err on the side of caution.

Why you make these claims is beyond me. When a person claims that someone else makes "assumptions" then you need to be able to prove that. Merely shouting "assumption" is an unjustified attack and about as far away from a Christian act as possible.

And there is no "proof" in the sciences. Even gravity is not "proven". They have to keep an open mind, unlike creationists who defend an idea debunked over one hundred years ago.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
If you read the results of the evidence that is examined by men of science, you quickly see by the language used, that it is mostly based on assumptions and speculations and then suggestions as to why the evidence points in that direction. It is always interpreted according to the theory, not the other way around. So if you have scientists who are Bible believers, then the evidence will point in the direction of Intelligent Design.

When pressed to provide the proof of their findings, you are soon informed that science has no "proof", just "evidence"....so if the evidence requires no proof, then it must require faith. Those are the only two options.

Its the same with the Bible...interpretation is everything. All have the same book, but all put their own slant on things assuming that the doctrines adopted by the church in the early centuries were taught by Christ. Most of them were never taught by Jesus or the apostles in the first place, and were never among the teachings given to the Jews in their scripture. Since all of the first Christians were Jewish, and the only scripture they had was the OT, it stands to reason that when doctrines were introduced into the church in those early centuries, (i.e. the trinity, immortality of the soul and a hell of fiery torment, among others introduced by the RCC) they must of necessity have come from outside of God's word, inferred in ambiguous verses.

All can be traced back to ancient Babylon in fact.

The Torah and Talmud are not exactly like the OT.. What does Babylon have to do with doctrine?
 
Top