What Do You See?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
But many other Christians can't say that. Too many try to make themselves look impartial and criticize "both sides". And that's bulls**t. Literal religious beliefs are dangerous and stupid, and even Christians understand that, but they can't be seen agreeing with atheists.
Click to expand...
It is difficult for many Christians to disagree with other Christians. We often try to seek common ground with them even if we have wildly divergent points of view on a variety of issues.

When it comes to other world faiths, Gretta Vosper has opined (and I agree with her, for once) that we often tolerate the intolerable in the interest of preserving interfaith dialogue.

It is relatively easy to agree with atheists. I think it is disagreeing with other people of faith that presents the challenge.
 
unsafe said:
The biblical text, however, is rather easy to understand without giving up on the inspiration of Genesis, or the authorship of Moses: the clean beasts and birds entered the ark "by sevens" (KJV), while the unclean animals went into the ark by twos. There is no contradiction here. Genesis 6:19 indicates that Noah was to take "two of every sort into the ark." Then, four verses later, God supplemented this original instruction, informing Noah in a more detailed manner, to take more of the clean animals. If a farmer told his son to take two of every kind of farm animal to the state fair, and then instructed his son to take several extra chickens and two extra pigs for a barbecue, would anyone accuse the farmer of contradicting himself? Certainly not. It was necessary for Noah to take additional clean animals because, upon his departure from the ark after the Flood, he "built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing to God after departing the ark, then he would have driven the various kinds of clean beasts and birds into extinction by sacrificing one of each pair. Thus, after God told Noah to take two of every kind of animal into the ark, He then instructed him to take extras of the clean animals. Similar to how Genesis chapter 2 supplements the first chapter of Genesis by giving a more detailed account of the Creation (see Lyons,2002), the first portion of Genesis 7 merely supplements the end of the preceding chapter, "containing several particulars of a minute description which were not embraced in the general directions first given to Noah" (Jamieson, et al., 1997).
Click to expand...

Except of course that there is no reason (from a historical or literary point of view) to believe Genesis is the work of Moses or of any one author at all. IMO this description is an attempt to cover over the reality of multiple authors/sources and based on a view of Scripture that I simply do not share. Mind you I also do not believe that we are talking about any remembered history until much later -- at least teh beginning of the Abraham saga.
 
paradox3 said:
It is difficult for many Christians to disagree with other Christians. We often try to seek common ground with them even if we have wildly divergent points of view on a variety of issues.

When it comes to other world faiths, Gretta Vosper has opined (and I agree with her, for once) that we often tolerate the intolerable in the interest of preserving interfaith dialogue.

It is relatively easy to agree with atheists. I think it is disagreeing with other people of faith that presents the challenge.
Click to expand...
It's relatively easy to "agree" with atheists? Did you mean "disagree"? Because it works both ways.

I wish you guys were as aggressive with the more loopy Christians as you are willing to be with atheists. You're not making a dent in nonbelief, but you could do so much better with the crazies.
 
Didn't Paul say that we should read the Old Testament as allegorical? The reference below is in regards to Abraham, but I'm sure the same can be applied to Genesis or the myth of Noah's Ark.

"22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 24These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children..."
- Galatians 4:22-25
 
airclean33 said:
--Hi Chansen--So what's your point hear? The rain lasted 40 days and nights. The same time are Lord Jesus wandered in the wilderness 40 days and forty nights. The water stayed on the earth 150 days , as the Bible states. I believe as GOD said in His word , the ducks that wear not on the ark died.
Click to expand...
Did the fish die in the flood, too?
 
Jae said:
Where in the Genesis account of the flood do you read that God was angry and vengeful?
Click to expand...

Drowning all life on Earth would seem to fall into that category. It's hard to picture a smiling, jolly old God doing it. That said, it doesn't actually say that, so perhaps it was more sad resignation than anger and vengeance. Nonetheless, chansen's point is that many, perhaps most, lifeforms on this planet that would shrug off a global flood (basically anything that lives it's entire life in the sea/water, though ducks are not the best example). Only life on land would actually be affected. If destroying all life on Earth ("destroying the Earth" as the NIV translates it) was the goal, a flood was actually a poor choice of tactic. It does make sense, though, if you look at it in terms of the people writing it. "The Earth" to many ancient cultures meant "The Land" and, indeed, a massive flood would affect all life on the land. So perhaps taken from that standpoint, the problem goes away.
 
Yes, Mr. Killjoy, there are other life forms that would do just as well if not better in a global flood. But "ducks" are funny.
 
airclean33 said:
--Hi Chansen--So what's your point hear? The rain lasted 40 days and nights. The same time are Lord Jesus wandered in the wilderness 40 days and forty nights. The water stayed on the earth 150 days , as the Bible states. I believe as GOD said in His word , the ducks that wear not on the ark died.
Click to expand...
And the fish...?
 
Neo ----your quote -----Didn't Paul say that we should read the Old Testament as allegorical?

No ----what Paul is referring to here is using Hagar and Sarah as the free woman and the bond woman represents the Law and Grace Hagar is the bond woman and Sarah is the free woman ------this is an allegory describing the difference of the Old and New Covenants ----unbelievers are still under the Law ----Allegories and Metaphors are used frequently throughout scripture ---------

The Old Testament Neo is the Foundation for the New -----all the Old Testament is important in understand God's Plan for the New Covenant of Grace

Galatians 4:21-31Common English Bible (CEB)
Slave versus free

21 Tell me—those of you who want to be under the Law—don’t you listen to the Law?22 It’s written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman.23 The son by the slave woman was conceived the normal way, but the son by the free woman was conceived through a promise.24 These things are an allegory: the women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to slave children; this is Hagar.25 Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and she corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because the city is in slavery with her children.26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.27 It’s written:
Rejoice, barren woman, you who have not given birth.
Break out with a shout, you who have not suffered labor pains;
because the woman who has been deserted will have many more children
than the woman who has a husband.[a]
28 Brothers and sisters, you are children of the promise like Isaac.29 But just as it was then, so it is now also: the one who was conceived the normal way harassed the one who was conceived by the Spirit.30 But what does the scripture say?Throw out the slave woman and her son, because the slave woman’s son won’t share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.[b]31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we aren’t the slave woman’s children, but we are the free woman’s children.
 
First, gotta love how the bible is fixated on sex. There is this all-seeing, all-powerful God, and he uses these abilities to record what you've done with your genitals so he can hold it against you.

Second, were I to believe in a God, I'd definitely want one who values the child of a free woman over the child of a slave. I mean, obviously.
 
chansen said:
It's relatively easy to "agree" with atheists? Did you mean "disagree"? Because it works both ways.

I wish you guys were as aggressive with the more loopy Christians as you are willing to be with atheists. You're not making a dent in nonbelief, but you could do so much better with the crazies.
Click to expand...
No, I meant what I said.

Yes, these things work both ways for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top