Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't know. I never said that.

I know - which is why I asked.

You claim that Man is Fallen - yet offer no explanation for how that is so.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I forgot the explanation. Your conclusion doesn't follow the premises.

You can't even remember what we are talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ even existed - let alone that He died for my sins and rose from the dead.

Believing in things without evidence is kind of part and parcel to being a Christian.

When have I ever done this?

Well, there is no reliable evidence for Jesus. But there is reliable evidence that tells us it never happened.

Are Christians supposed to be Flat Earthers? That sort of belief is only one tiny step away from believing the Flood myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can't even remember what we are talking about.

I do remember. Hence my post. I just failed to include the answer to your question in my previous post and recognized that. You know, honesty.

Don't be sore because I noticed your confusion and pointed out that fact earlier.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know - which is why I asked.

You claim that Man is Fallen - yet offer no explanation for how that is so.

I haven't seen anything from you that establishes what you believe you know is more than just what you believe.

You claim that the story of Adam and Eve is literal, yet offer nothing to support that.

I am not claiming that mankind did not fall into sin.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow - I didn't assume this or anything else about you.

I was lamenting how frustrating it was to try and talk about only prayer in a vacuum - because that is impossible.

In order to properly discuss prayer - I would need to discuss other things - such as studying the Word of God and applying it to our lives.

I claimed that "someone" (not necessarily you) would need to do these things as well as pray in order to receive revelation - and I shared this because that is what I have come to believe from my study of the scriptures and my personal experience.

I don't understand why you took it as a personal attack.

As I explained earlier, the sense I (and others) get from Christians like you is that the reason we didn't feel, hear, or receive anything in response to our prayers is because we didn't really mean it, weren't sincere enough, or were too ignorant of the faith.

That's extremely presumptuous and given the desperate state some folks were in, can be seen as insulting.

While we are on that subject though - and don't take this the wrong way - but your "immersive" childhood doesn't mean you actually came out understanding anything.

Basically - there is a reason that children were not Prophets or Apostles.

I certainly understood enough to realize that it's nonsensical and wasn't something I could believe.

A system that requires a certain level of faith and understanding before receiving revelation.

That makes no sense. You have to fully and truly believe it, and then you'll start getting revelations and it'll start making sense.

Most folks would instantly spot the illogical and circular nature of that framework in just about any other situation.

I don't subscribe to the "saved" system of belief.

My understanding of the scriptures is that the Lord Jesus Christ came to save us from both sin and death - so if you are an individual who still commits sin and is still subject to death (literally everyone on the planet) - then you are not "saved".

Now - as to the witness of the Holy Spirit - which can occur through prayer or other means - that does not necessarily require any preparation on our part - other than the desire to be better I suppose.

So far in our discussion we have been talking about receiving answers (revelation) to specific questions - which definitely require study and application.

Even though the Holy Spirit is involved in both of these things - I do not believe them to be the same.

So - I do not believe that anyone is "saved" - and the bar for the Holy Spirit to witness to an individual is rather low - and happens more often than you'd think.

Thanks for explaining.

"You" Christians and "your" faith - eh? You're becoming rather divisive.

Anyways - I can't think of any group of people who agree on everything - not even scientists with all their "facts".

Not the same thing at all. Scientists for example generally agree on the basics and how to go about things. Christians don't seem to agree on anything, and given how none of it can be independently and objectively established, it's kind of an "anything goes" enterprise.

You're a good example of that. All you have to do is construct your own personal version of Christianity, believe it, and that's it. Anything goes.

He was - several times.

Funny then how Christians don't seem to agree on any of it.

The most "cut and dry" example is from the Lord Jesus Christ in His Sermon on the Mount when He told His disciples to not pray like the hypocrites in the streets to be seen of men - but to do it in secret (Matthew 6:6).

Yet Christians pray in public every single day.

My study of the scriptures has taught me that God wants us to pray to Him personally - and the fact that the church you went to didn't get that memo speaks volumes.

Just because they prayed in public doesn't mean they didn't also pray in private.

If they are unwilling to study the teachings of the Savior - then they aren't going to know or understand the teachings of the Savior - it's that simple.

Your fifteen year "immersion" may have been in the shallow end of the pool.

And I'm sure if they were here, they could find some things about how you practice Christianity that they think are wrong. This sort of thing is captured quite well in this cartoon....

I cannot receive revelation for you.

However - considering your claims about the church you attended - I doubt you were at all prepared to receive any revelation about the need for prayer, the Bible or church attendance.

Riiiiiight.....because God was like "Gee, I'd love to help you in your time of need, but you aren't asking in exactly the right way, so sorry bud."

Bizarre.

He isn't going to give you all the answers or solve all of your problems - but if you are doing your very best (which does not involve having a pastor pray on your behalf) - then you can receive more guidance from Him.

From what I can tell, "he" either doesn't exist, or exists in such a way that is indistinguishable from non-existence. I get the same thing from praying to the Christian God that I get from praying to all the other gods.....nothing.

Well - would it help if I shared that I believe that all things are eternal - including you and I?

I believe that we have always existed - in some form - and that we will always exist in some form.

We are just as eternal as God and the Law.

I don't see how that helps. You seem to have made up your own personal version of Christianity and are now judging others for not adhering to it. That you do so within a system that's entirely lacking in any means of independent verification strikes me as rather amusing.

 

[Jose Fly]

You'd never consider sacrificing yourself for a loved one?

We're not talking about jumping in front of a car to shove a child out of the way. We're talking about a "god" apparently having to become human (sort of), come to earth and live for 30 years, allow other humans to kill him, and then return to heaven.....all to save humans from the rules he created in the first place.

So to bring it back to your analogy, if I could just change the rules rather than commit suicide in order to save a loved one, I'd go with the former. The latter makes zero sense.

How so?

Are you saying that you would do things against your own nature if you became all-powerful?

No, see above.

But things like training are completely subjective.

No they're not. We can measure a player's progress in various tasks and even conduct statistical analyses of their progress as they train.

Have you spent the bulk of your life studying the Word of God? Fasting? Praying?

If you put in less effort and time than I do - don't be upset if we get different results - and don't assume that with enough effort and time on your part that you cannot receive similar results.

How could you make that determination without ever expending the effort and committing the time?

Again you present a scenario where you have to first believe, then devote much of your life to this faith, and later just maybe you'll start to hear from God.

Have you ever considered the possibility that all that time and effort is just you working to delude yourself? That the reason you have to go through all that is because it's what you have to do to overcome your own critical thinking instincts?

You can. I have done that with this topic. I have said so many times.

However - I got that "I don't know" as an answer to my prayers.

I received testimony of various things - that Noah was a real person, that there was an Ark, that there was an event that caused massive loss of life.

However - as to whether it was one global event - or a series of regional events - or just one local event - I got a wall - a non-answer - which is an answer.

It wasn't a "nothing" - there was an answer - it was just void of information. It is not easy to explain.

He is not revealing that knowledge to anyone anytime soon for reasons that I don't understand.

And I'm fine with that.

However - it's important to start seeking revelation on smaller things - rather than on the validity of Genesis stories.

So how do you respond to someone who says they received a revelation from God that contradicts yours?

I don't think I assumed anything.

Yeah you did. You assumed I wasn't sincere in my prayers.

I struggle with pride all the time.

And because of that I know that you taking things personal and then attacking me in this way is a sign of pride.

I'm in no position to judge you or tell you how to live your life - but I can say that you are derailing this conversation.

And if that is your intent - then let's just stop.

I thought this was one of the good ones - but I don't want to waste my time if that is not the case.

This is the dynamic behind these sorts of discussions that usually causes them to end badly.

When you tell me that the reason I got nothing from prayer is because I wasn't sincere enough, my faith wasn't strong enough, and I didn't know enough I'm expected to take that with a smile and be polite....because you're just sharing your faith with me. But when I suggest that maybe the reason you have some of your experiences is because you're prone to delusion, that's an "attack" and a reason to just end the discussion right then and there.

I get this in real life too. Folks like me are expected to be nice and polite as Christians try and tell us that our way of looking at things is all wrong, but as soon as we push back in the slightest, suddenly we're the ones being rude. But I'm old enough now that I kinda don't care. I have just as much right to say what I think of your beliefs and experiences as you do about mine.

Your personal experiences have as much of an effect on my beliefs as mine have on yours.

You not receiving revelation is no skin off my nose.

You say that, but the amount of time and effort you've put into this suggests otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

I honestly believe I could have

Um....okay then.

Aw - so I'm a crazy person now?

So much for, "If you experienced something meaningful, who am I to try and take that away? I say, go forth and be at peace."

You are trying to take it away - so I'm not going to indulge you anymore.

I didn't say you were "crazy" or anything like that. I just noted that you apparently hear voices in your head that tell you to do things, and believe you can bring dead people back to life.

Of course - because you believe that religious people do not posses critical thinking skills. They need college to teach them that - right?

Never said that.

I don't understand the question.

I believe that Islam has gotten many things wrong and some things right.

Do you believe that Muslims will end up in hell (or whatever negative afterlife outcome you believe in), or heaven (or whatever positive afterlife outcome you believe in)?

Did God destroy "all" life or not?

What sense would it make for Him to claim that He was going to kill everything while simultaneously commanding Noah to build an Ark in order to save something?

So obviously God's use of the word "all" did not literally mean "all" - since He went out of His way to spare some.

That is why I believe His use of the word "all" needs to be viewed from the proper context.

I cannot confirm or deny that I have applied the proper context - but it makes sense to me.

Okay, glad it makes sense to you.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I haven't seen anything from you that establishes what you believe you know is more than just what you believe.

You claim that the story of Adam and Eve is literal, yet offer nothing to support that.

I am not claiming that mankind did not fall into sin.

The story of Adam and Eve has been the only explanation - from a Judeo-Christian scriptural standpoint - for the Fall of Man.

You have claimed that that story is merely an allegory - which is a claim that the Judeo-Christian scriptural explanation for the Fall of Man is false.

Which leads me to ask you - yet again - how you would explain the literal Fall of Man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The story of Adam and Eve has been the only explanation - from a Judeo-Christian scriptural standpoint - for the Fall of Man.

You have claimed that that story is merely an allegory - which is a claim that the Judeo-Christian scriptural explanation for the Fall of Man is false.

Which leads me to ask you - yet again - how you would explain the literal Fall of Man.

It is an error to assume that man had to "fall" in the first place. Man was never perfect. He was never created in the sense that you use the word. It is a pity that you do not understand how the Garden of Eden myth portrays God as incompetent and evil. It is bad theology and as a Christian you should be happy that it is wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The story of Adam and Eve has been the only explanation - from a Judeo-Christian scriptural standpoint - for the Fall of Man.

That does not make it a literal event.

You have claimed that that story is merely an allegory - which is a claim that the Judeo-Christian scriptural explanation for the Fall of Man is false.

I consider it an allegory, based on the evidence. Being an allegory does not make it mere. That is just your weakness, not mine.

You are so far off base. Considering it an allegory does not mean that I consider the points to be false.

Which leads me to ask you - yet again - how you would explain the literal Fall of Man.

I don't know the actual story. There is no historical record of it other than two different versions of oral tradition written together as a single story in the beginning of Genesis. You can keep asking. I am not claiming to know the actual events or pretending I do.

I suppose my faith is just stronger.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

As I explained earlier, the sense I (and others) get from Christians like you is that the reason we didn't feel, hear, or receive anything in response to our prayers is because we didn't really mean it, weren't sincere enough, or were too ignorant of the faith.

That's extremely presumptuous and given the desperate state some folks were in, can be seen as insulting.

I am open to the idea that I may not be explaining my beliefs properly - it is difficult to talk about prayer alone without talking about all kinds of other things - as I complained about earlier.

So I'm going to try to address this as clear as I can.

Considering my belief that God not only exists - but He is also a perfect Being - then it would stand to reason that I believe that any failure in communication between us and Him would be on our end - not His.

This is not me judging you - but me sticking to one of my core beliefs.

We are Fallen beings - we are imperfect - and the "nature" we inherited from the Fall includes pride, insincerity and all kinds of other things.

I know I mentioned pride and insincerity being barriers to receiving revelation - but those are just drops in the bucket of barriers between us and God - and I do not recall claiming that you were guilty of any of these things.

I did claim that I have never met a humble or sincere fifteen year old - and that it may have been unreasonable of you to believe that you could come to receive revelation as a teenager.

There aren't any children Prophets or Apostles for a reason.

I also posed questions about your reactions to what I and other Christians may have said and how they might be evidence of your lacking humility and sincerity.

Again - I only know what you shared - so I have no way of knowing anything.

However - considering that every single person has Fallen and are inflicted with the same "nature" - that is nothing more than pointing out that you are just a normal human being.

Being humble and sincere is not like the idea of being "saved" by some Christians - they aren't a static condition one achieves.

I'm constantly battling my pride - among other things - and I will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

The important thing is to do better each day - and I'm confident that I am.

I feel that our main issue in this discussion is that you keep comparing me to other Christians - assuming meanings behind some of the things I say and concluding that I am judging you.

I am in no position to judge you - so please don't pre-judge me.

I certainly understood enough to realize that it's nonsensical and wasn't something I could believe.

Are you open to the idea that what you were taught was not what the Bible teaches or as a child you may not have been capable of properly analyzing it?

I mean - you have claimed in the past that people don't learn how to critically think until college - so is it not possible that you did not possess that skill when you were taught these things?

I only ask these things because I shed many false teachings in my pursuit of truth.

Most were well-intentioned - but still wrong - so I had to continually re-examine everything I "thought" I knew as I dove deeper into my study and prayer.

The more truth we know - or rather the more falsehoods we push out of our minds - the clearer the revelation we can receive.

That makes no sense. You have to fully and truly believe it, and then you'll start getting revelations and it'll start making sense.

Most folks would instantly spot the illogical and circular nature of that framework in just about any other situation.

No - you do not need to fully and truly believe everything before receiving revelation - all you need to start out is a mere desire to believe.

I realize that I have been speaking from a privileged position - I have had experiences that I cannot deny - and I had those experiences by doing what we have been talking about and more.

So - since I overcame some obstacles - I am making it sound easier than it was - and I haven't really talked about the challenges I still face and will continue to face.

I will always have those challenges.

But back to what I was saying - all you need to have when you start is a mere desire to believe.

For example - revelation - the idea of God communicating back to you - you need to allow in your mind and heart the possibility that you could actually receive an answer.

Don't cast out that idea because of your unbelief - open a space in your heart - and imagine that you are planting that idea in there - as if it were a seed.

Then - imagine that you studying and applying what you learn is like watering that idea - and see what happens.

It will be subtle at first. You may not even notice anything - but I promise - because I have done it - that if you continue to learn and live by the Word of God - you will feel that seed stir.

And it will come naturally.

I do this with every new and compelling idea - and sometimes that idea grows in my heart - and other times it does not.

In your last post you mocked me for believing that God spoke to me in that hospital.

That right there is an example of you casting out the idea before you even gave it a chance.

If you reject the idea that God could ever speak to you - then you have sabotaged yourself - and you will never receive any revelation.

That makes sense - doesn't it?

How could you ever receive revelation from God if the entire time you don't believe you ever could?

Not the same thing at all. Scientists for example generally agree on the basics and how to go about things. Christians don't seem to agree on anything, and given how none of it can be independently and objectively established, it's kind of an "anything goes" enterprise.

Again - you can't view me as some sort of representative of all Christendom - that's just not fair.

I don't speak for all Christians - only myself - and I try to make it clear when I'm sharing my personal viewpoint and when I'm sharing from the scriptures.

And the Bible should be a standard - I know it can be interpreted in all kinds of ways - but the "basics" are there for anyone who is interested in finding them.

So - no - it is not "anything goes" - because we can read the scriptures - it's just that I believe most Christians choose not to do that.

You're a good example of that. All you have to do is construct your own personal version of Christianity, believe it, and that's it. Anything goes.

Well - how is that different than anyone when they are choosing their personal code of conduct?

I mean - people aren't automatons - mindlessly following everything they are told.

Everyone puts their own "spin" on everything - for better or worse - and that's what all people have always done.

Because that is what this is all about - us becoming who and what we want to be.

Religionists aren't necessarily trying to explain the Universe by believing what they do - they are just trying to grasp their place in it and what they should be doing with the time they have been given.

That's why I don't stress too much about the whole Noah and Flood thing.

Funny then how Christians don't seem to agree on any of it.

Objectively - Christians agree on much more than they disagree.

I think they are just being lazy - and don't want a personal God who gets in their hair.

Yet Christians pray in public every single day.

The Lord Jesus Christ was talking about a specific way of praying that the Jewish elders were doing.

There is nothing wrong with public prayer - as long as we aren't doing it to be seen of men - or rather to receive the praise of men.

It just doesn't do you any good to pray if all you are motivated by is to be seen by others doing it.

That is why He told His followers to pray in secret - to understand what prayer really is - not a tool to earn brownie points with your peers.

The same could be said of anyone asking someone to pray on their behalf.

The idea that prayer is nothing more than a "wish list" to Santa - defeats the purpose and won't do you any good.

Just because they prayed in public doesn't mean they didn't also pray in private.

True - I thought you were saying that was what your church did to pray though.

And I'm sure if they were here, they could find some things about how you practice Christianity that they think are wrong. This sort of thing is captured quite well in this cartoon....

Funny - but it doesn't change the fact that the scriptures should be our standard.

And I can see a room full of scientists doing the same thing.

Riiiiiight.....because God was like "Gee, I'd love to help you in your time of need, but you aren't asking in exactly the right way, so sorry bud."

Bizarre.

It would have been more like, "I want to help him in his time of need - but he cannot yet bear of the burden of this truth."

The more truth one receives - the more condemnation before the Law they will receive if they should violate the Law or forsake that truth.

Our doubt - or our living by faith - is what saves us from the effects of the Law during our mortal probation.

If God does not believe we are capable of living by a level of Law - He will not reveal anything pertaining to that level of Law to us - because He does not wish to condemn us.

From what I can tell, "he" either doesn't exist, or exists in such a way that is indistinguishable from non-existence. I get the same thing from praying to the Christian God that I get from praying to all the other gods.....nothing.

I believe that I am no longer in a position to accept any premise that argues that God does not exist.

I believe that would condemn me before the Law - because I have had experiences that have proven to me that He does exist.

And this life is about us - what we want to do and become - and He is not going to steal the show from us.

He is going to try His best to stay out of our way. It is only when we come to Him that He comes to us.

I don't see how that helps. You seem to have made up your own personal version of Christianity and are now judging others for not adhering to it.

I believe it helps because it argues that God did not create the Law - they are co-eternal.

God is not responsible for the Law.

And I don't believe I have judged anyone.

That you do so within a system that's entirely lacking in any means of independent verification strikes me as rather amusing.

I told you that there are spiritual Beings around us all the time and if you develop properly - you can receive visitations from them.

I cannot receive the witness of the Holy Spirit for you - any more than I can see through your eyes.

I cannot receive revelation for you - anymore than I can love your mother as you do.

These are things that can only be experiences and verified by you.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

We're not talking about jumping in front of a car to shove a child out of the way.

But - we are. A cosmic and universal "jumping in front of a car to shove [us] out of the way".

We're talking about a "god" apparently having to become human (sort of), come to earth and live for 30 years, allow other humans to kill him, and then return to heaven.....all to save humans from the rules he created in the first place.

I do not believe that God created the Law - they are co-eternal.

And by perfectly adhering to the Law - He controls the Universe.

The Lord Jesus Christ was a Man in every sense - save He had power over His own life - no one could take it from Him.

He came into the world having forgotten all things - and grew up as other children do - although His nature was always evident - therefore He never committed sin.

He was bound by the mortal condition and time - which included ignorance and doubt.

He eventually learned things about Himself - but He had to learn those things through study and prayer - no different than what we should be doing.

He needed to have the completely human experience not only to be that perfect Sacrifice on our behalf - but to be that perfect Judge.

He knows what it is like to be human in every way - and He suffered all the consequences of the Law on our behalf on account of our sins - so He knows us perfectly.

So to bring it back to your analogy, if I could just change the rules rather than commit suicide in order to save a loved one, I'd go with the former. The latter makes zero sense.

And what if you don't make the rules? What if you love the rules and it would be against your nature to violate them?

Imagine a righteous king who perfectly observes the laws of the land which are involatile and have been passed down since time immemorial - whose son has been found guilty unto death for violating the law of the land.

Therefore - because of his ever lawful nature and love for his child - the king legally assumes the identity of his son - including the responsibility of any and all violations of the law - so that the punishment of the law can be carried out and that his son could also go free.

The king preserved both the law and his son - while remaining true to his nature.

I mean - there is more to it than that in God's plan - but maybe you see it?

No, see above.

No - this is important.

You would not go against your own nature the moment you became all-powerful.

You would still be you.

No they're not. We can measure a player's progress in various tasks and even conduct statistical analyses of their progress as they train.

And we can see when someone is humble and when someone is not.

When someone is at peace and when someone is not.

When someone truly loves their fellowman and when someone does not.

I believe that everyone can come to find peace, humility and love by studying the scriptures and praying.

However - the Holy Spirit is constantly working in the hearts of Man - so as long as they have a desire to be better - they can still receive these things through Him.

Again you present a scenario where you have to first believe, then devote much of your life to this faith, and later just maybe you'll start to hear from God.

Trust me - this all started with a mere desire to believe - and I was even hoping it wasn't true.

What we have mainly been talking about is receiving revelation - which took years of study, fasting and praying.

Yet my initial moment - when the Holy Spirit testified to me - was based on an open mind and heart - not much more - because I didn't know much more.

Have you ever considered the possibility that all that time and effort is just you working to delude yourself?

I don't believe it takes much effort for someone to delude themselves.

In fact - I think those less likely to study things out for themselves are more likely to be deluded.

But - yes - at first I didn't want to believe it - so I repeated the process over and over again - and expanded what I was studying and praying about.

Even though I was full of doubt - and some dread - I kept getting the same witnesses and reassurances.

The literal answering of prayers did not come for years after that.

That the reason you have to go through all that is because it's what you have to do to overcome your own critical thinking instincts?

In your OP you claimed that religious people did not receive critical thinking skills until they went to college - and now you are claiming that I have "critical thinking instincts" - as though I were a "real boy"?

No - if you have read any of the stories about Prophets and Apostles - their lives are filled with struggling against the natural man within them.

It is a constant struggle to be humble, patient, sincere, kind - because it goes against our flesh.

And to go beyond even that - to grasp charity and the pure love of Christ - is an infinite struggle.

Oddly enough - this struggle brings me peace. It is only when I succumb to the natural man that I feel stressed or lost.

It's like a kite. It only stays up as long as there is a string pulling it down. Once you cut that string - it plummets to the ground.

I still think its crazy that you thought you could come to know these things by fifteen.

So how do you respond to someone who says they received a revelation from God that contradicts yours?

Well - considering that that will almost always be the case - it doesn't bother me.

Most revelation concerns how we are to live our lives and since everyone lives are different - they are going to receive different instructions.

And as I said earlier about God giving us only what we can bear without coming under condemnation - I wouldn't be surprised if people are given only what they can handle.

Yeah you did. You assumed I wasn't sincere in my prayers.

I said that the problems will always be on our end, that lack of humility and sincerity are possible reasons for lack of receiving revelation and that I have never met a humble or sincere fifteen year old.

There are all kinds of reasons for why people do not receive answers to their prayers - many are changeable at the time - while others are not.

I honestly think the fact that you were a child was the greatest obstacle.

This is the dynamic behind these sorts of discussions that usually causes them to end badly.

When you tell me that the reason I got nothing from prayer is because I wasn't sincere enough, my faith wasn't strong enough, and I didn't know enough I'm expected to take that with a smile and be polite....because you're just sharing your faith with me. But when I suggest that maybe the reason you have some of your experiences is because you're prone to delusion, that's an "attack" and a reason to just end the discussion right then and there.

I get this in real life too. Folks like me are expected to be nice and polite as Christians try and tell us that our way of looking at things is all wrong, but as soon as we push back in the slightest, suddenly we're the ones being rude. But I'm old enough now that I kinda don't care. I have just as much right to say what I think of your beliefs and experiences as you do about mine.

Yeah - but there is a difference between saying that everyone needs to be humble and sincere to receive revelation and saying, "You are not a humble and sincere person."

There is a difference between saying that everyone needs to study God's Word and pray in order to receive revelations and saying, "You are an ignorant person."

The first things are standards of faith - while the others are personal attacks - aren't they?

I never said that all atheists are ignorant, insincere and prideful - did I?

If you believe that are religious people are delusional - that is your prerogative - but it's not going to help you understand religious people or their faith - and its an attack.

And you were getting all butt hurt before - taking it real personal - and I'm not any of the people you knew before from your old church so I don't think I deserve that.

I believe that God exists and that He is perfect and that any failure to communicate is going to be on our end.

So - you didn't receive an answer to some prayers when you were a kid?

The bulk of my prayers go unanswered - because the answers come according to His time and will - so there is no shame.

However - if I ever want to get that revelation - I need to try my best to stay humble and be willing to do what He tells me.

My wife and I recently moved based on our prayers - and key events - but where we moved was based on our combined efforts of research and prayer.

You say that, but the amount of time and effort you've put into this suggests otherwise.

Don't mistake my love for talking about my beliefs and experiences with you having any effect on them.

This is just a conversation - nothing more.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Um....okay then.

You're not trying to take that away from me - are you? As if you could.

If it were according to God's will - I could do anything - because I try to be an instrument in His hands.

I didn't say you were "crazy" or anything like that. I just noted that you apparently hear voices in your head that tell you to do things, and believe you can bring dead people back to life.

No - it is God that can restore people to mortal life.

The voice I heard did not tell me to "do" anything. It explained what happened and that I was praying for the wrong things.

You are trying to cast the most negative light on my experience - which is not consistent with your claim that you wouldn't try to take it from me.

Never said that.

Yes - you did - in your OP.

Do you believe that Muslims will end up in hell (or whatever negative afterlife outcome you believe in), or heaven (or whatever positive afterlife outcome you believe in)?

The book of Revelations claims that all men will be judged according to their works - not what ideology they subscribe to.

It also points out that Hell is a temporary condition placed on the unrepentant - and they will be released from Hell before their Final Judgment.

The Lord Jesus Christ claimed that everyone will be forgiven their sins - save those who commit the unpardonable sin.

Therefore - there is no reason to assume that anyone - Muslim or otherwise - is going to Hell or any other negative afterlife.

All that matters is what we do.

Okay, glad it makes sense to you.

And it doesn't to you?

I'm not asking if the story makes sense - only about the use of the word "all".

Should we interpret God's use of the word "all" to be literal considering that He made efforts to save many lifeforms?

 

[rational experiences]

Science today just lying. Don't remember how they built the ark by gods say so. For a new resource.

Science one human thought one symbolic preached thesis to one machine reaction only.

Already practiced the science of one nuclear dust removal back to a space hole leaving residue minus one status.

Thought upon the bible today and owns visionary pyramid memories discussing how great and powerful he personally once was as first human science.

Yet the pyramid as a form not any resource got destroyed.

God O planet body reactions is always included as his thesis.

He never did God as a science he did pyramid science.

God never built the ark in other words.

Science today wants God to have built the ark keeps placating arguing I am sure God built it first.

God owned the erection from O flat ground state into ∆ the mountain that arose. Arose first teaching of God the mountain only.

His thesis is personally a volcano actually as he infers UFO mass radiation by mass and our heavens gases. As modern day theory studies.

As his want UFO O interacting with machine from space as origin.

O∆ status pyramid was its end blasting.

∆ mountain historic lost small ^ to o. mass gone. Altogether does not equate volcano as mass left to resource after pyramid is gone. Yet he still used raised stone form origins in his fake little pyramid theory ^.

Reaction advice is the blasting moment only as a formula to invent. Ignored as relevant human advice why you are wrong. Pyramid was destroyed total mass of everything. As you ignore science is not natural earth body's awareness.

What you are still advised about in life ownership natural.

Blasting event was first above ground inside atmosphere from ground state.

Did not involve any mountain whatsoever.

Was not a mountain erection.
Was not a pyramid erection.

O it was a sink hole removal going the other way....out of creation as form into space.

Radiation leaving.

Father said your brother today is not even a scientist in his theories and meant what he said.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said as the ark went via temple mountain circuit blasting temples the mountain mass disintegrated as you tried to convert first stone law mountain into invention a volcano.

As both mountain form was natural and so is volcano. What you ignore what you caused as a scientists. Copying by inventive causes. Beginnings he says on God earth.

Stone is sciences beginnings.

Mountains crumbled into heaps as they could not convert into first heavens form gas from volcanic.

Why it occurred

Always told you that you are a liar in science.

 

[gnostic]

Science today just lying. Don't remember how they built the ark by gods say so. For a new resource.

Science one human thought one symbolic preached thesis to one machine reaction only.

Already practiced the science of one nuclear dust removal back to a space hole leaving residue minus one status.

Thought upon the bible today and owns visionary pyramid memories discussing how great and powerful he personally once was as first human science.

Yet the pyramid as a form not any resource got destroyed.

God O planet body reactions is always included as his thesis.

He never did God as a science he did pyramid science.

God never built the ark in other words.

Science today wants God to have built the ark keeps placating arguing I am sure God built it first.

God owned the erection from O flat ground state into ∆ the mountain that arose. Arose first teaching of God the mountain only.

His thesis is personally a volcano actually as he infers UFO mass radiation by mass and our heavens gases. As modern day theory studies.

As his want UFO O interacting with machine from space as origin.

O∆ status pyramid was its end blasting.

∆ mountain historic lost small ^ to o. mass gone. Altogether does not equate volcano as mass left to resource after pyramid is gone. Yet he still used raised stone form origins in his fake little pyramid theory ^.

Reaction advice is the blasting moment only as a formula to invent. Ignored as relevant human advice why you are wrong. Pyramid was destroyed total mass of everything. As you ignore science is not natural earth body's awareness.

What you are still advised about in life ownership natural.

Blasting event was first above ground inside atmosphere from ground state.

Did not involve any mountain whatsoever.

Was not a mountain erection.
Was not a pyramid erection.

O it was a sink hole removal going the other way....out of creation as form into space.

Radiation leaving.

Father said your brother today is not even a scientist in his theories and meant what he said.

Father said as the ark went via temple mountain circuit blasting temples the mountain mass disintegrated as you tried to convert first stone law mountain into invention a volcano.

As both mountain form was natural and so is volcano. What you ignore what you caused as a scientists. Copying by inventive causes. Beginnings he says on God earth.

Stone is sciences beginnings.

Mountains crumbled into heaps as they could not convert into first heavens form gas from volcanic.

Why it occurred

Always told you that you are a liar in science.

I am completely baffled as to what you are trying to say.

All I know is that, you are anti-science.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That does not make it a literal event.

Yet - it still makes it the only event of the Fall described in the scriptures.

You have yet to offer any alternatives.

I consider it an allegory, based on the evidence.

What evidence? Why haven't you shared this evidence as part of your claim?

Being an allegory does not make it mere. That is just your weakness, not mine.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would consider faith in the narrative of the scriptures a strength - not a weakness.

And yes - any story of the scriptures being a simple allegory would make it "mere".

Think if the story of the Lord Jesus Christ was only an allegory - wouldn't that make it "mere"?

You are so far off base. Considering it an allegory does not mean that I consider the points to be false.

So - you believe in the literal Creation of Adam and Eve who were responsible for the Fall of Mankind - yet consider their story to be "the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence"?

Because the "points" of the Adam and Eve story were that they were our literal first parents who partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and became mortal.

You can't believe it is an allegory - or that they were "symbolic fictional figures" - and also believe that the "points" of their story are literally true.

I don't know the actual story.

Yes - you have offered no alternatives.

There is no historical record of it other than two different versions of oral tradition written together as a single story in the beginning of Genesis.

You are referring to the Creation here - not the Fall of Man.

There is only one version of the Fall of Man - which is recorded in Genesis 3.

However - I believe that the first two Creative chapters can be explained as not "two versions" - but as a spiritual organization first and a physical formation second.

You can keep asking. I am not claiming to know the actual events or pretending I do.

You are claiming that you don't know what actually happened - while insisting that it is impossible for Adam and Eve to be nothing more than fictional characters.

You understand that you cannot do both of these things - right? That this makes no sense?

Either you know (or believe) what the actual events are or you don't.

Unless you are claiming to have had some kind of revelation where you only got pieces of information and not the whole thing?

Yet - that wouldn't be considered "evidence" - would it?

I suppose my faith is just stronger.

You don't even seem to know what to have faith in.

And who is to say that anything else in the Bible - including the concept of faith - is not merely fictional?

You claim there is evidence for your belief that Adam and Eve were fictional characters - but I have yet to see it.

You claim that despite this evidence proving that Adam and Eve were fictional characters - that you believe the "points" of the allegory are still true?

You claim that my believing the Genesis account - which is referenced by the writers of the New Testament as if they were real events - means that my faith is weak?

And you believe that your innate ability to discern which parts of the Bible should be considered fictional makes your faith stronger?

I just see a lot of inconsistency wishful thinking.

 

[Jose Fly]

...

To be honest, I've found it very difficult to maintain interest in our discussion, given the number of days between posts and how many times I've had this sort of discussion before. So I'll just summarize what I see as the key points.

First, I didn't mean to say or imply that religious people are completely lacking in critical thinking skills, and they only acquire them in college. I thought I and others had made that clear earlier. The point is, we all have some level of critical thinking skills and college is one means by which people enhance them, which could be a primary factor in people leaving religion during their college years.

Now on to the main point, namely prayers being answered and receiving revelations from gods. I'll be blunt....I've heard pretty much everything you've said in response to what I told you about my past experiences and such many, many times before and I've never found any of it persuasive. In fact, from my perspective it makes the whole deal even less believable. Like I said, it depicts a god who in response to people desperately seeking its help, guidance, input, or even presence is like "You didn't ask the right way", or as you put it "You aren't ready for the answers", so just leaves everyone hanging and does absolutely nothing to make anything better. If a person did that, we'd instantly recognize them as being an inconsiderate jerk, but when it comes to gods believers make up all sorts of excuses to explain why their gods just aren't there.

Also, don't assume that my experiences with Christianity ended when I was 15. Later in life I reexamined the faith, including attending different churches and meeting with church leaders. In short, I saw the same fundamental problems with the faith and got the same unsatisfying and (at times) ridiculous answers as before. So I finally decided that Christianity just isn't for me. Then after looking at other religions and such, I ended up concluding that I am simply not a religious person and religion just does not resonate with me at all. And to be clear, I'm very happy and satisfied with that. It's who I am and I feel I'm being true to my nature.

Regarding your religious experiences, I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to dissuade you away from them. We all have our own experiences and backgrounds, and far be it from me to try and act as if I can speak authoritatively about what you've been through.

And that brings me to my final point, i.e., the difference between your reaction to my experiences and my reaction to yours. When I told you about mine and how they didn't agree with yours, you immediately went into apologetics mode and spent a great deal of time trying to explain away my conclusion, persuade me that I'd done something incorrectly, and should try it all over again. But when you told me about your experiences, I didn't do that. Sure, I shared some of my thoughts about it all, but that's literally all it was....me saying "this is what I think", not anything like "well this is where you were wrong".

That's an interesting psychological dynamic and seems to be yet another important and fundamental difference between us. You tell me about your experiences and I mostly just shrug and think "that's nice". I tell you about mine and you immediately start trying to convince me that I had it all wrong. You could have just said "Well, I hope it all works out for you" or something like that. That you didn't is rather fascinating from a human behavior standpoint, but that's another topic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet - it still makes it the only event of the Fall described in the scriptures.

You have yet to offer any alternatives.

What evidence? Why haven't you shared this evidence as part of your claim?

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would consider faith in the narrative of the scriptures a strength - not a weakness.

And yes - any story of the scriptures being a simple allegory would make it "mere".

Think if the story of the Lord Jesus Christ was only an allegory - wouldn't that make it "mere"?

So - you believe in the literal Creation of Adam and Eve who were responsible for the Fall of Mankind - yet consider their story to be "the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence"?

Because the "points" of the Adam and Eve story were that they were our literal first parents who partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and became mortal.

You can't believe it is an allegory - or that they were "symbolic fictional figures" - and also believe that the "points" of their story are literally true.

Yes - you have offered no alternatives.

You are referring to the Creation here - not the Fall of Man.

There is only one version of the Fall of Man - which is recorded in Genesis 3.

However - I believe that the first two Creative chapters can be explained as not "two versions" - but as a spiritual organization first and a physical formation second.

You are claiming that you don't know what actually happened - while insisting that it is impossible for Adam and Eve to be nothing more than fictional characters.

You understand that you cannot do both of these things - right? That this makes no sense?

Either you know (or believe) what the actual events are or you don't.

Unless you are claiming to have had some kind of revelation where you only got pieces of information and not the whole thing?

Yet - that wouldn't be considered "evidence" - would it?

You don't even seem to know what to have faith in.

And who is to say that anything else in the Bible - including the concept of faith - is not merely fictional?

You claim there is evidence for your belief that Adam and Eve were fictional characters - but I have yet to see it.

You claim that despite this evidence proving that Adam and Eve were fictional characters - that you believe the "points" of the allegory are still true?

You claim that my believing the Genesis account - which is referenced by the writers of the New Testament as if they were real events - means that my faith is weak?

And you believe that your innate ability to discern which parts of the Bible should be considered fictional makes your faith stronger?

I just see a lot of inconsistency wishful thinking.

I am not looking to offer alternative. Viewing it as allegory does not require some alternative story line.

I don't have any evidence. No one does. Why do you think I have evidence? Evidence for what?

The story as allegory is not mere. That is your biased opinion.

You are either very confused or very dishonest.

I didn't say anything about your faith and a lot of things you are rattling on about here.

There is no evidence that Adam and Eve were real people. Can you get your head wrapped around that.

Approaching my faith like an adult is probably what makes it stronger.

You have a beautiful day.