Assuming the flood was real

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Quoting myself, from the initial message:

quote:

---

And more important:
2) Was the re-creation act of the flood a success? Did it's happening result is a better world, than that which would have been, had the flood not happened?

​

As I see it, the flood had no positive results. It is a detail in the Bible, that has no real significance.

---

​

I'll give this topic a bump, by (perhaps) clarifying my motivation in starting it.

​

I intended this topic to be a theological discussion, of the significance of the flood, regardless of if it was a physical reality or just a symbolic passage.

​

So, what did God accomplish by means of the flood?
Moose

---

moose, i think there's more to it than you've read so far... yeah degenerate man plays into it, but also genesis 6 (when read in the context of 2 enoch)... here're a few of my thoughtsGod put some angels in charge of watching his creation.. enoch called them, strangely enough, the watchers... now they were supposed to have the star trek non-interference rule in place, but they violated that... different ones taught different things to mankind... worse, they saw some things humans had (and did) that appealed to them... so they took physical form and bred with humans...the watchers themselves were worshipped, as you might imagine.. but their offspring were 'supermen/women'... giants physically and mentally... capable of and practicing great evil...it's my belief that in all creation only one family remained free from the blood of the watchers, the family of noah... the flood was designed and implimented to bring the world back to man's only... man needed a certain amount of time to reach whatever points God knew to be the optimum points in his plannow i don't think any of this took God by surprise, but given the attributes i subscribe to him the flood took place as part of that plan, mapped out before creation..this is just my view, ok? based on what little study i've had time to devote to it.. remember that before asking me to back it up.. it's just my opinion

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it's my belief that in all creation only one family remained free from the blood of the watchers, the family of noah...

---

​

Its a shame his sons took wives from outside that limmited *pure* gene pool then isn`t it....

​

---

actually by "family" i was including them all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
First, we have the confusion over the whole tree of knowledge thing. God creates this guy, then realizes he missed a bet, and creates a mate for him. The two of them screw up, God gets mad, and kicks them out of the garden (in a fit of pique?). Not a good thing for an allegedly omniscient being, but hey, maybe the whole free will thingy was an experiment gone bad. Rather than simply fix the problem or admit that She'd set up an impossible situation (how could that happen if She knows everything that's going to come to pass?) She curses them and their descendants through all eternity. Strike one.

---

bigggg misconception there.. quite a few, really... your strike one thingy is based on what? an inate understanding of God and his plans? or is it simply a perception that if it was *you* you'd have done it differently?the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... what was its purpose? in bridge there's a bid known as "preemptive"... the meaning is obvious, it's simply a bid made to take away bidding space from the opponents... now let's suppose a few things (i can suppose as easily as you can)go back to the discussion on the singularity being God's thoughts... now then, he looked at all possible universes he might create, under all possible conditions, with all possible people created at all possible times... given his criteria for man (created in his image, with his attributes), he settled on the only possible universe that satisfied his attributeshe knew the inherent danger of creating man with divine attributes (even tho limited in scope or degree), especially if one of those attributes was free will... yet he judged the danger, and the outcome, worthwhile because of the goals he'd set... what goals? an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him...now then, God knew what would have to happen for his goal, his plan, to be realized... he wanted the least amount of time possible to elapse for his plan to come to fruition... and he had a free agent already in place, one who hated God, one who wanted to *be* God... he knew this free agent would do everything he could to ruin what God had wroughtgiven man's free will and satan's hatred, God knew when man would "fall"... maybe, without that tree, the fall would occur hundreds or thousands of years later... maybe not... suppose that's the case... why not preempt satan? why not plant that tree in the garden, why not tell adam not to eat of it lest he die? doing so in no way interfered with adam's choice to obey or disobey, it simply gave him an opportunity to do that which he'd do anyway, yet at a time in history that would result in the least possible time of evil on earthtake it a little further... without eve, maybe adam would resist satan for a very long time... yet, in the end, still succumb to temptation... there are so many lessons that tie in with this, not the least of which is God's implanting in us the doctrine of "headship" (a whole 'nother bible study)...so we have adam being told not to eat of that tree, we have eve being told by adam what God had said, we have satan telling eve "surely not!! how can a fruit so lovely, one that the eating of which will make you into a god, be wrong to eat? c'mon eve, what's the harm in knowing all that God knows?"eve wasn't convinced... she called adam over... "hey hon, this snake makes some good points... i mean, *look* at this apple... he says it's delicious, he says we can eat it and be as god, wise and smart and everything... whatcha say babe, wanna give it a try?"adam looks at eve... hmmm... he looks at the apple, back at eve... he sighs (men, know that sigh? *grin*)..."i dunno sugar, hath not God said the day we eat we'll surely die?"..."yeah well, this snake ain't dead and he says God wasn't being upfront with you... besides, i'm not real sure what it means to die, are you?"..."well no, not really... i dunno sweetie.. you think it'll be ok?"and eve smiles real toothily or something, "i think so, uh huh... me first?""ok *sigh* go ahead"and she did... and adam did... and that very day mankind was doomed to be born dead, spiritually dead to God... "unless man is born again..." Jesus would say later... "from above" the translators say... "of the Spirit of God" it means..by choosing to listen to satan rather than adam, eve was deceived... by choosing to listen to eve rather than God, adam sinned... but what was the point?it's my belief that (for free will reasons already stated) the fall would have occurred at some later time and place... it's my belief that this would result in God's goals being realized after even more time and evil... it's my belief that this episode was necessary for man's eventual salvation, because unless an awareness of what "for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" meant, man would persist in his view that he can save himself... it's my belief that adam and eve is a lesson in history, one God taught in several different places at several different times... "trust your head, who is Christ... trust your God, who is the eternal I AM... listen and heed and believe my words"when people ask me "if there is a God, why is there evil, why doesn't he wipe it out, do something about it" i always say, "he is... he's been doing it from the beginning... it takes time, but only as much time as absolutely necessary"speculation? well *sure* it is... but heck, if you can speculate so can i... but my speculation is based on a whole lot of scripture and on whatever i believe God has chosen to allow me to understand concerning that scripture

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

1) God is omniscient and knew the outcomes from the git go and so set up a no-win situation for humanity KNOWING FROM THE START that things would inevitably become bollixed up. You attempted to pass this off as "part of God's plan", but neglected to explain how cursing humanity to degeneration and suffering unto the nth generation would ultimately lead to, in your words "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him..."

---

there are certain assumptions that, it seems to me, must be made if you're asking for the reason i believe you're asking, ie. because you want to know.... some are, how powerful is God? what attributes does he possess?now let's assume i'm correct (granted, nobody is close to knowing the whole picture).. God is all those omni things, including benevolent, but so much more... think of almost anything you'd describe as 'transcendental' or 'metaphysical' (defined as, not suspended in time and space)... most if not all of those things exist, in my view, because they are part of God's nature... logic being an example (with the 'omni' added)... just *assume* that to be so, a priori, ok?the universe we're in, in that case, is the *only* universe it was possible for God to actualize IF he was intent on creating a free race of beings with all attributes of divinity (i don't want to keep saying this for you christians out there, but i am *not* implying we are gods)... we do not know, we can't know, whether or not it was even possible for God to create a world *at all* unless it contained each and every one of the (what craig terms) 'trans-worldly damned'... given omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience, we have to assume that God created the only and/or best given self-imposed limitationsit's very hard explaining the role of the o.t. in christian theology, or why things were as they were... however, i happen to believe that nothing happened at all that didn't have some bearing on Messiah's appearance on the earth... from adam and eve to hosea and gomer, from cain and abel to elijah and jezebel, from noah to job, all things had an aim of teaching man why Jesus was necessary...once God actualized this creation, the end result that seems so hard to understand, "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him.." was only true *because* of the exact nature of his plan... had one thing not occurred, some other thing would or would not occur, and every change in the life of every person ripples thru history...in the end it does come down to trust, i know that.. and i know how hard it sometimes is to trust God, even for me... i so want to be in charge, i so want to be in control of my own destiny... sometimes i also get discouraged and lose sight of exactly what sin does and why God created us knowing he'd have to die to redeem us...

quote:

---

Another question along the same lines, so I understand what you're trying to say here. You state "God knew when man would "fall". In other words, for no doubt good and sufficient reasons, God deliberately created something that was inherently flawed, that would at some point crash.

---

well i think if you'll accept the assumptions above re God's attributes you'll admit the "inherently flawed" statement might not be so... God created the world perfect, adam included... it is *so* hard making a person understand just how destructive sin is... if i could put it in terms of a disease, maybe it'll make more sense... then again, maybe not... imagine a virus on earth that not only killed the host but spread to all matter around that host... not only that, it spread from bits of matter to bits of matter... this virus not only ages and degenerates a person's body, but her mind and spirit and soul... more than this, it degenerates the very ground on which she stands... *everything* is affected by this viruse...now, it's a temporal virus.. the only known cure for it resides outside of time... yet, while inside time neither it nor its consequences can be escaped... your question is, then why did God allow the existence much less the spread of such a deadly disease?the key is, he *allowed* it... yes, he knew what giving adam the freedom to choose would mean... but adam was created with the ability to withstand this disease, he had all the physical and spiritual weapons needed to defeat sin and death... just as i have a choice in utilizing any tool or weapon at my disposal, adam had such a choice... he chose wrongly.. but we can't judge adam... free will was necessary, but once granted *any* human would sooner or later fallso God knew this yet still created... why? he obviously judged the end result to be worth it... he knows what we have awaiting us, he has perfect knowledge and he acts out of perfect love... if you can accept that as true merely for the sake of argument, you have to logically conclude that whatever he allowed *must* have been the very best he could do given the conditions he imposed upon himself... that's what christians do, we trust God... not perfectly and not all the timeQ, it isn't surprising that you don't trust him, i don't know if you even grant his existence... but please don't make the mistake of assuming he didn't have perfect reasons for creating a perfect world and putting in it a pefect man while knowing all along what would happendid you know the bible calls Jesus the last adam? yup, 2 corinthians 45 or something i think, tho i'd have to look it up... this is very important... Jesus had to have *total* humanity, he had to have all the tools adam had, he had to face all the temptations adam (and all mankind) face... he had the choice every step of the way to obey or disobey his Father... the very moment he was arrested in the garden of gethsemane he could have escaped... "you don't *take* me," he said, "i could call down 12 legions of angels if i wanted, my Father would do as i ask... you think he *wants* to see me tortured and bleeding and murdered on a cross? but i won't... no, you aren't taking me, the Son goes willingly wheresoever he chooses"

quote:

---

So out of some misplaced sense of mercy or whatever, in order to get the bad stuff over quickly so that humans could make lots of other humans to worship him (I assume from your post that sex was verbotten in the garden for some reason), He deliberately set up a preemptive bid situation where humans were GUARANTEED to screw up - because of the parameters established by God himself. All so he could boot them from paradise? This is supposed to be a good thing?

---

now Q, when you categorize God's mercy as "misplaced" is it possible it only seems so from your view, your limited knowledge of all things? btw sex wasn't verbotten in the garden... there was simply no stigma attached to it, no pruient thoughts associated with the naked body... and yes Q, "booting" them from paradise (tho i prefer to think of them leaving voluntarily, given the choice adam had) was necessary for eventual and eternal salvation

quote:

---

Even granted that this was the case, and for some ineffable reason God felt this was the right thing to do at the time, why was it apparently necessary to wipe out all life on the planet a few years later - when His creation turned out to do exactly what He'd predicted? This makes absolutely no sense.

---

i understand... now remember, different christians hold different views on different subjects... as long as we're consistent in the majors that shouldn't cause the problems we see within the church... on this particular subject, it ties in with genesis 6 and 2 enoch (my view only)...God had put angels in charge of the earth, called watchers (according to enoch, which was accepted as scripture by jude and peter, and probably by all n.t. authors - they're the only two to mention it)... they took human form and taught man things... different ones (i believe there were 12 of them) taught different things... they also bred with human women... the watchers themselves were worshipped as gods, you can imagine the power they had... their offspring were giants and geniuses, men and women of whom legends were writtenremember the discussion about why the tree existed? i said maybe without it evil would exist far longer? there is an optimum time limit for evil to exist on earth... whatever that limit is, the existence of offspring of angels affected it... the offspring, called nephium i think, were capable of everything humans-only were capable of, but vastly superior in strength, intellect... and capacity for good AND evil

quote:

---

You guys would be a lot better off jettisoning the Old Testament (maybe keep some of the prophecy stuff so that you can claim Jesus as the Messiah, etc), and holding on to the New, which has most of the good stuff about peace and loving your neighbor.

---

actually i almost do that.. i don't jettison it, of course, it is the word of God... but when it's understood in the context of teaching the coming of Christ, and when it's taught in that light, it's better... it's amazing how much of it is about Jesus... especially the story of the exodus

^^^^^^^^^^yayus...

hi Q, i wrote a reply to this that took over an hour.. i wasn't done even then, and my isp cratered... i hit 'reconnect' and *immediately* lost the browser window and the reply.. so i'll try again but it will be much shorter.. my mind only works in spurts heh heh heh.. i too cut out much, let me know if i overlooked something you need

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Well, I do want to know what you think. However, to be honest it’s more on the lines of an attempt to understand the apparent cognitive dissonance practiced by True Believers when questioned on the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible — especially in the OT and notably in Genesis. I’m interested in how you rationalize the problem.

---

i'll go ahead and answer the last paragraph here also, see your post for that paragraph... i don't attempt to reconcile any difficulties, and i'm not nearly smart enough to know what to cut out and what to keep from the o.t.... i believe it is God breathed, that man wrote what God instructed at various times and in various places...i will say that if you can read a little of paul you'll see that in each city he visited he started in the synagogue... he attempted to convince the jews that Jesus was the Christ, and he used scripture to do that (notably prophecy concerning Christ)... this scripture might have some importance in convincing a gentile, but even if so it won't compare to the importance it has for jews...the o.t. contains much that i enjoy reading and pondering, it teaches me something new every time i read portions of it... but to me its main value lies in how so much of it shows God's future economy, how much shows redemption through Christ.. as a gentile, i can only understand the o.t. in light of the new... as a matter of fact (don't break out the stones please), if a person never heard of the o.t. it would have no bearing on her salvation...so the truth is, the n.t. is for the christian, not the old... not in terms of salvation... here's an analogy, sorta... imagine you're in the 3rd row of a theater... it's dark but not completely... you can see the stage, you can make out the furniture on the set, you can see the outlines of people moving about... then the lights come on and you see everything clearly, sharply... the dark was the o.t., the light is the new... you couldn't know or understand exactly what you were looking at until the lights came on...

quote:

---

Okay, however it looks like we’ve already hit a snag. With the various omni- attributes, why would it be necessary for God to impose limits? IF God was in fact omnipotent, any limitations He imposed on himself (assuming such a paradox was possible), would have the effect of negating or constraining His omnipotence — which would mean He was no longer omnipotent.

---

the "limits" i spoke of were only limits by virtue of his inability to act in a way counter to his nature... assume for the moment one God... further assume he's the God i've described, with the attributes i gave... ok?... that is *him*, that is God... any other being without the attributes of God is not God... see?if God is omnilogical, even acting in an illogical way would make him not himself... so the limits weren't limits on his power, they weren't limits in that sense of the word... maybe i should have said God doesn't act contrary to his nature... but that doesn't quite capture my thought either.. he *can't* act counter to his nature... to do so to any degree at all would make one or another attribute less than 'omni'... see?

quote:

---

On the other hand, if you mean the limitations were imposed on the universe, this appears to imply there were constraints placed on the creation. In which case, there would seem to be deliberate constraints placed on free will, which doesn’t square with the idea of free will in the first place. On the other hand, you mention that God was limited in what he could create IF you accept the universal constraint argument — which again speaks against divine omnipotence.

---

i hope 'constraints' and 'limits' can be better understood now... i meant them only as they relate to God's nature...

quote:

---

once God actualized this creation, the end result that seems so hard to understand, "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him.." was only true *because* of the exact nature of his plan... had one thing not occurred, some other thing would or would not occur, and every change in the life of every person ripples thru history...

​

I agree that this follows from your argument (not agreeing that your argument is sound, mind you). However, what you’ve posted here completely denies the existence of free will.

---

i'm gonna try to recreate what i wrote earlier, the one i lost.. but i can't promise i will since i expended a lot of thought on it.. i'll do my best, cause i think you really are interested in my thoughts (even if for merely 'memetic evolution' reasons *grin*)wait... hmmm... it occurs to me that the best way i can do this is by asking you to use your imagination for just a little while... try to accept a new paradigm for a relatively short duration... try (it may be very difficult) to say "ok, God exists.. now then, how can i reconcile free will with foreknowledge? how does predestination tie in?"... if you can do that (i don't know you nor your ability to think outside the box for some duration of time, especially if that box concerns God), then try to read up a little on 'counterfactuals of creaturely freedom' and on 'God's middle knowledge' ... oh, look also for 'newcomb's paradox'... why say "God exists" for this exercise? because i think if you don't it won't really hit home why or how those things solve any problem... iow, by reading them from your present perspective i think you might not see it the way i dothis saves me from having to recreate all i wrote and gives you the advantage of having those things explained by people far more qualified than i... you don't, of course, have to come away believing what they write... merely an understanding of what i've been trying to say will be ok... not that you *don't* understand, simply that i haven't done a good job of explaining...sorry Q, i have to go read up on turkey carving *G*... try to get to those if you have time and we'll talk later.. and i apologize for this effort, i really did write *reams* of stuff... sigh

hi Q

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Actually, that's a pretty fair way of looking at the differences between the OT and NT. I'd heard the bit about Paul before - the early evangalists were looking to convert the Jews, and in fact explicitly excluded everybody else. It wasn't until later that Christianity expanded its mandate as it were. If I was of a cynical bent, I'd wonder if it wasn't because they weren't have a lot of success with the Jews of the time...

---

actually no, that isn't quite accurate... not sure where you got that, but this is closer to what happened... paul was called by Christ to be the apostle to the gentiles... not the jews... and that's what he did, however paul had a real burden for his brethren the jews... once he even said "i'd gladly be accursed if my brothers would believe" or something like that..so what he did, he'd go to a new city and go to the synagogue before going to the gentiles.. he never planned on *not* preaching to the gentiles, he stated quite often that this was the reason Christ chose him... the time he spent with the jews varied... some listened, some didn't... some were intellectually honest, were truly seeking the truth (notably the bereans), some weren't.. but no matter the length of time, he'd always set up shop in the city proper and teach the gospelpeter, otoh, was an apostle to the jews, as were most of the others... man there is *so* much teaching i could do ... but it's a vast subject and would lead me too far afield.. now there is some truth to what you say above.. out of pride, a segment of the early church (even in the highest places, james the brother of Jesus being the focal point) couldn't accept the "simplicity" (as paul called it) of Christ, preferring to keep God as 'the God of israel' and forcing gentiles to obey at least parts of the law..paul blasted this thinking, and they truthfully didn't understand imho... but you are correct as to the reasons the gospel very quickly spread among gentiles and not jews... most jews just did not believe... they expected a kingdom 'of this world', they expected Messiah to destroy their enemies... many did, but far more didn't believe...

quote:

---

~~snip for space reasons~~ Unfortunately, that gets modern Christians in a real bind when they have to try and rationalize the OT with the NT - not to mention with the findings of the new idea of scientific inquiry. Which, all things being equal, has probably cost more than a few (de)converts. Like I said, without the OT, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place - because only by insisting on the absolute immutability of the WHOLE bible - OT and NT combined - that the opposition has anything to argue about.

---

well the truth is, it's "the gospel of Christ that is God's power unto salvation" and the gospel can be found in the n.t. .... the o.t. is interesting, to me, from the views it gives of Jesus (prophecies) and the beauty and wisdom even its worst critics will grant... but as far as simply loving to read and learn, i stick to the n.t.

quote:

---

However, by the statement "he *can't* act counter to his nature", you are definitionally placing constraints on his omnipotence. Look, I'm not trying to get into one of those endlessly spiralling arguments about "could God create an immovable object that even He couldn't move?". I'll leave that to the Jesuits - who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing things like this.

---

yeah, silly argument alright.. as c.s. lewis said when speaking of the 'can God create a rock too big for him to lift?', "nonsense is still nonsense, even when the subject is God"... so in that vein, i have to disagree that it limits his omnipotence in any way... see, he holds *all* his attributes in perfection.. he simply can't *not* be less than perfect in any one of them... this is why i tabled my opinion on whether or not God *had* to create us... it may well be that he did have to from the sense i'm trying to convey

quote:

---

I'm not sure the question even HAS an answer - it appears to be one of those things that just "has to be taken on faith". I'll buy that defense, believe it or not. However, before you jump at the opportunity, remember my original, oft-repeated contention: taking something on faith automatically removes it from the realm of science. If it isn't science, it can't by definition be taught in science class.

---

no argument here... i don't believe i've ever argued differently... faith, by the very definition God gives it, can't be science... however i would like for "science" books to point out more often, and more strongly, the difference between something that is actually science and something that is merely hoped to be... imo a subject such as abiogenesis requires every bit as much faith as a belief in creation... the o.t. is God's word tho, it just isn't applicable to the christion life... that doesn't mean it can't benefit christians, the bible tells us (even in the n.t.) that it can...yes, seeing my viewpoint is acceptable... it's the only rational way to discuss anything... here are a few good links, they give both sides of the story, unfortunately (for you, i guess) bill craig is the most proliferate and vocal champion of some of thismiddle knowledge discussiona good link, a little historycraig's chief intellectual foe, quentin smithnewcomb's paradox.. if you can follow the logic (not that easy) craig should show you what i've been sayingthat's enough i think

hi Q...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

Just one additional comment:

​

quote:

---

Q: I'm not sure the question even HAS an answer - it appears to be one of those things that just "has to be taken on faith". I'll buy that defense, believe it or not. However, before you jump at the opportunity, remember my original, oft-repeated contention: taking something on faith automatically removes it from the realm of science. If it isn't science, it can't by definition be taught in science class.

​

F: no argument here... i don't believe i've ever argued differently... faith, by the very definition God gives it, can't be science...

---

​

I think I was referring to your comment in the "Is America a Christian Nation" thread where you mentioned you felt that creation science and evolution were equally valid (or words to that effect). Obviously, if you agree that faith isn't science, then we're in agreement.

---

i was just stating that evolution is taught as a theory and that others had theories also... since that post i've done some thinking on this subject and the jury's still out... according to God, faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"... i don't think, however, that means faith is without reason, or that reasonable men and women can't also have faith

quote:

---

As for abiogenesis - most of the specifics are pretty speculative (and are usually so identified) except the basic observation that there's nothing disproving the idea. Who knows, we might find out ultimately that we can't show how life was created (or duplicate the feat). Still doesn't mean it didn't happen - or in the absence, that a divine supernatural creation DID happen. For the latter, you'll need the same kind of positive evidence as for abiogenesis. I won't argue that a deity couldn't have created the first replicator. I won't argue that it DID, either. Given that everything ELSE we observe once life happened is based on natural processes, I'd have to say the odds of a natural explanation being correct are higher than a supernatural one. But I stress that's my opinion, and can rightfully be laid at the doorstep of my particular philosophy and worldview. The good news is that there are a lot of really sharp scientists working on the issue. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be a lot of really sharp scientists working the creation angle.

---

yes, but i do believe abiogenesis is "hoped for" ie., hoped to be true by some... and if so, i have a suspicion that not all of the ones so hoping are doing so merely in a quest for knowledge... true, that's a motivation... but you tell me your opinion, do you believe at least some are motivated by a hope that, if abiogenesis is proven true, God no longer becomes necessary as a Creator?

quote:

---

the o.t. is God's word tho, it just isn't applicable to the christion life... that doesn't mean it can't benefit christians, the bible tells us (even in the n.t.) that it can...

---

quote:

---

I won't argue the OT isn't an interesting book from an anthropological and sociological sense - maybe even some history. I would argue - as I have - that it doesn't make sense for modern Christians to insist on its inerrancy. You're losing converts when it conflicts with both the sociology and science of modern people. Simply focusing on the NT - to the exclusion even of the parts of the OT which "document" the messaianic claims or foretell the coming of the Son of Man (which are unlikely to be of interest to any but biblical scholars anyway and were included by the early Christians simply to try and legitimize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah) - you'll save a lot more souls if that's your aim, IMO.

---

as far as "saving souls" goes, the o.t. doesn't enter into it very often... evangelism rightly concerns itself with "Christ and him crucified" for our sins... the o.t. helps one understand the whys of it, and as such will always be needed for those who desire such knowledge... but i will never deny it as scripture, nor deny that it is inspired by God...let me say a word about "losing converts"... i hope this doesn't come across as harsh, i don't think it will but one never knows... a big problem i used to have was in thinking that God had somehow put me in charge of 'soul saving'... that simply isn't true at all... he's the only one who can save a soul, he's the only one who can add to his kingdom... all i can, and should, do is share the gospel message... i can try to answer questions the best i can, i can try to show others the reason i have this blessed hope... i haven't done a very good job of that lately, my pride has caused me to become far too argumentative and abrasive... but with God's help that sort of thing will not happen in the future, i sincerely hopei will still defend my faith as i'm called to do, but only in the way i'm called to do it... God is, he exists, and he assures me that he's given everyone more than enough evidence of this... it isn't my job to prove something that he's told me is already proven... it's my job to get a person to at least acknowledge the possibility that such a thing as 'self-deception' exists, and to hopefully examine his or her concious and to seek God... it's my job to get others to sincerely wonder if Jesus Christ can change lives, if having a relationship with the Son of God is a real possibility... so that's what i'll try to do

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I'm uncertain if this is something I should be doing in "Admin mode", but I am going to.

​

I would like to compliment both forgiven and Quetzal for doing what has impressed me as being a fine series of messages.

​

Adminnemooseus

​

---

Q is a reasonable person who asks very insightful questions... i'm partially reasonable with some answers... we may never agree on some things (then again, one never knows), but that's not a good reason to abandon etiquette... i've enjoyed our interaction very much... unfortunately i recently took on a new job and i'll be very limited in time from now on... will try to drop by as time allowsthank you for saying such a nice thing

hi Q... sorry for delay, but they'll only get longer i think

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

quote:

---

yes, but i do believe abiogenesis is "hoped for" ie., hoped to be true by some... and if so, i have a suspicion that not all of the ones so hoping are doing so merely in a quest for knowledge... true, that's a motivation... but you tell me your opinion, do you believe at least some are motivated by a hope that, if abiogenesis is proven true, God no longer becomes necessary as a Creator?

---

quote:

---

I won't argue with the "hoped for" part, except to say that the negative aspect you mention is by no means universal. I would venture to say most of the folks actually working on abiogenesis really DO see it as a quest for knowledge - an intricate puzzle, and possibly the ultimate puzzle. If someone is "hoping" for abiogenesis to bolster their worldview - well, I have to say I pity them for having such weak convictions. As to my personal opinion, I'm ALREADY pretty much convinced that a supernatural explanation - God - is unecessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth.

---

​

i hope you mean "pretty much"... i can't convince you otherwise, i know... i would say that, given what we know about the precarious balance that had to exist and has to exist for life to be here and now, i think God *is* necessary... but of course i don't need those things... i never did, i guess... it just all makes perfect sense to me, has since i heard the gospel

quote:

---

As an aside, and further to the last statement, IF it was shown that the first replicators were "created" ex nihilo, I would very likely modify my stance to something resembling a deistic (or maybe pantheistic) viewpoint. I honestly don't think it would change much about the way I live my life, or the way I look at biodiversity for instance. It certainly wouldn't mean that I would perforce become a Christian, for example. It is possible to accept the existence of a Designer (*shudder*), without presupposing that the Designer is the Christian God, and that the whole idea of salvation, eternal life, etc is ALSO true. No offense.

---

​

then there's no way for me to "win" is there? ... if you became convinced of a deity's existence, i believe that fact alone would cause you to look at the world's religions... but more than that, i hope it would cause you to reach out to the Father of Jesus... if you ever do reach that point, then the things i have to say to you might make much better sense to you

​

[edited to add: Let me throw that question back at you: IF abiogenesis were to be shown as possible, what, if anything, would that do to YOUR belief?]

---

i don't know... i honestly don't know... i understand the ramifications, believe me... it might destroy my faith... it would at the very least cause me to do some very deep soul searching

quote:

---

let me say a word about "losing converts"... i hope this doesn't come across as harsh, i don't think it will but one never knows... a big problem i used to have was in thinking that God had somehow put me in charge of 'soul saving'

---

quote:

---

Absolutely delighted to hear you say that. No, it wasn't harsh at all - quite honest and refreshing, in fact, and consistent with your willingness to "discuss" rather than "preach". Unfortunately, there are quite a few Christians, notably fundamentalists, who simply see it as their mission to prosyletize the ignorant heathens like me. Wanna see a nasty response from me? Try preaching at me sometime .

---

how sweet are the words of the preacher ... as in every walk, as with all proponents, there are the reasonable and there are the irritating... when i preach i try to make it appear as if i wasn't lol... take care Q, thanks for your well wishes... i have much to learn and won't be around as often as i'd like{I have done no editing, other than adding this message (in red). My intent is not to pick on forgiven, but the above message is a fairly good example of quote structure problems. Read through it, and try to determine which statements are forgivens, and which are Quetzal's. Which are replys to what previous statement? Kind of hard to tell, isn't it. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:

quote:

---

i don't know... i honestly don't know... i understand the ramifications, believe me... it might destroy my faith... it would at the very least cause me to do some very deep soul searching

---

​

I was genuinely interested in this - why would it damage your faith to learn that God used natural processes to create the first life?

---

hi karl and Q... you both asked about my above so i'll answer here... God said he created man, God said he created animals "after their kind"... either he did or he didn't... if he did, abiogenesis is not the way life began on earth... if he did, a common ancestor can't account for the salamander and the horse fly... so john is mostly right in his reply above... when there are two diametrically opposed accounts of life on this planet, someone is either wrong or lying... God has spoken, man's wisdom will be shown to be folly... take care

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Except He didn't say that. He told the earth and the seas and the skies to bring forth animals and fish and birds, each according to their kinds. Each time, it then says "so God created..." - it seems to me that "the earth/sea/sky 'bringing forth'" is equated with God creating. Or, to put it another way, as I have said several times, abiogenesis and evolution are the outworking of God's creative activity. I don't see a requirement in these verses that each "kind" is "brought forth" in a particular manner, and I do see a hint of abiogenesis. I do see a powerful and poetic statement affirming God to be the creator of all things.

---

hi karl... i guess i'm curious as to what that means, to you... for example, does this"20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind..."mean (in your opinion) that the birds came from the same primordial soup as the sea creatures? or this"24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds...."to you does that also mean the land creatures came from the same soup? i'm just trying to get a take on your thoughts... finally,"7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.."in your opinion does that mean God may have created man in a way different from the way it's reported? thanks