Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why did Noah's descendents forsake God so quickly?
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 61 of 74 (530486)
10-13-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Flood legends on all continents.
Not only that, but even the ancients mined metallic resources and you'd be hard-pressed to find enough of them without mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 11:39 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Jack, posted 10-13-2009 5:46 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2009 9:30 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 62 of 74 (530487)
10-13-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by roxrkool
10-13-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Flood legends on all continents.
Not only that, but even the ancients mined metallic resources and you'd be hard-pressed to find enough of them without mountains.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by roxrkool, posted 10-13-2009 5:42 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 63 of 74 (530504)
10-13-2009 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Faith
Hi hooah,
hooah writes:
So this is allegory then? God is talking to himself? Why would God need to be baptized?
The Mental, Spiritual manifestation of God is speaking to those present concerning the Physical God man.
He didn't need to be baptized.
He just set an example and say's follow me.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 11:36 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 64 of 74 (530509)
10-13-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Jack
10-13-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Flood legends on all continents.
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes:
When they see the "mountain tops" visible above the receding flood waters, they're not real mountains? What about "Mount Ararat" when the Ark comes to rest? Is that not a real mountain?
Noah did not say anything about seeing mountains. Moses wrote about the mountains because they existed at the time he was writing. God did not explain every detail to him. But maybe he should have known as he told us the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. But like us he keep letting the things he could see get in the way.
hooah in Message 56 you did raise a good point as scientifically the division recently would have been impossible. But apparently the creation in Genesis 1:1 is also scientifically impossible.
But God does not let me, you or science limit Him, He does as He pleases.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 10-13-2009 11:54 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Jack, posted 10-14-2009 9:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 65 of 74 (530514)
10-13-2009 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peepul
10-13-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Flood legends on all continents.
Hi Peepul,
Peepul writes:
Ararat?
I never heard a rock talk but they can tell a story.
I lived on top of a mountain in the Caribbean Ocean that the highest evelation above sea level is presently 30 feet. Little Cayman is 1 mile wide and 7 miles long, 43 feet above sea level is the highest point. On the south side of these Islands is the Cayman Trough which is 25,000+ feet deep.
So why would there be a problem with the pre-flood land mass looking like my avatar?
Especially if it was the only land mass sticking out of the water at that time?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peepul, posted 10-13-2009 12:04 PM Peepul has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 66 of 74 (530516)
10-13-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by roxrkool
10-13-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Flood legends on all continents.
Hi rox,
roxrkool writes:
Not only that, but even the ancients mined metallic resources and you'd be hard-pressed to find enough of them without mountains.
Has the earth always had oceans of water?
Or was it competely dry at one time even molten?
As I understand it there are massive mountain ranges under the water at present. But maybe I am wrong.
The earth had mankind creatures far into the distant past prior to Genesis 1:2. They were not like modern mankind who was created in the image/likeness of God as recorded in Genesis 1:27 some 6,000+ years ago.
At Genesis 1:2 there was no land mass above water as it was all covered.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by roxrkool, posted 10-13-2009 5:42 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 67 of 74 (530522)
10-13-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Izanagi
10-11-2009 1:49 AM


Topic drift alert
The topic starter writes:
Sorry about the confusion, but I had wanted to understand the creationist argument for the flood in light of the fact that most religions are polytheistic with few religions in the world subscribing to a monotheistic faith and how creationists could account for this.
Essentially, rather than looking at the scientific evidence against the Flood, I am looking at the cultural evidence against the flood.
The topic seems to have taken a turn towards science (or something like that).
Perhaps a review of Izanagi's messages might be useful.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Izanagi, posted 10-11-2009 1:49 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 68 of 74 (530598)
10-14-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Izanagi
10-13-2009 10:06 AM


Re: The source of faith
Izanaqi writes:
Then no one in the world currently has faith because no one in the world has seen an act of God. I think that's where your argument leads to, right?
When Jesus said to Thomas
quote:
Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed
.. he was illustrating the nature of the self same God-sourced faith that convinced Noah of Gods' existance. That is to say; God is not restricted to manifesting himself empirically (ie: "seen") in order that he be made manifest to someone. Whether through empirical manifestation or no, faith is unaltered: the person believes because God acted - whether that person is Noah or me.
-
And if a mere story isn't transmitted from an epicentre unto all corners of the globe then what of it? Especially when the story concerns a God whom people have replaced with a god they feel to be real-er?
That doesn't make sense. A hundred years later, people replace a God of whom they can see the evidence of God's existence firsthand with gods that they just arbitrarily made up because they seemed more real?
Firstly, the point I was making had to do with a reason why a mere story about God can be expected not make it to/take hold as faith in the far flung corners of the world. Faith following from an act of God and not by the recounting of stories explains that much.
Not that distance matters. A God-acted-upon parent telling a not-yet-God-acted-upon child about God would produce the same kind of belief in the child then as it does now - a cultural belief. Which is not much of a belief at all - as countless atheists brought up with cultural Christianity will tell you. Cultural beliefs are easily dispensed with.
As an aside, I'm curious about evidence of God you suppose a post-flood child to have available to it - aside from her parents testimony I mean?
-
If you are seriously arguing that acts from above are required for faith, then the Egyptian gods are no more real than the God of Abraham. There should be no reason to decide to worship some guy named Ra because Ra hasn't done anything and won't do anything because he isn't real.
I'm merely giving the biblical position on faith - I'm not trying to prove that God acted.
For the sake of discussion we are supposing that God action produced Noahs faith. We immediately have a feasible explaination as to why faith in God could disappear - whether quickly or slowly. Simply: God didn't act so faith disappeared
It's not a complex idea once you assign the source of faith to God.
Even a believer relies on God's continuing action to sustain his faith. If God 'withdraws' the persons faith wavers, if God comes close, the person can move mountains.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Izanagi, posted 10-13-2009 10:06 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 4:37 PM iano has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 69 of 74 (530613)
10-14-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
10-13-2009 8:32 PM


Re: Flood legends on all continents.
Noah did not say anything about seeing mountains. Moses wrote about the mountains because they existed at the time he was writing. God did not explain every detail to him. But maybe he should have known as he told us the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. But like us he keep letting the things he could see get in the way.
O_o
Let me get this straight, you think that a flood that only faintest shred of evidence for is the text of Genesis happened but you're perfectly happy to also accept that this account* is entirely flawed in the basis of it's detail? Seriously? If you don't accept what was written as factually correct why not reject more of it? Why not take the suggestion it was a local flood misreported by later writers seriously, for example? How much else of the story did "Moses" get wrong?
* - which I presume you're attributing to Moses, itself a pretty tenuous notion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2009 8:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 70 of 74 (530732)
10-14-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
10-14-2009 7:37 AM


Re: The source of faith
God is not restricted to manifesting himself empirically (ie: "seen") in order that he be made manifest to someone. Whether through empirical manifestation or no, faith is unaltered: the person believes because God acted - whether that person is Noah or me.
Then what's preventing the immediate descendants of Noah from believing in the same way? What makes you so special that you can believe without empirical observation and Noah's immediate descendants cannot?
Not that distance matters. A God-acted-upon parent telling a not-yet-God-acted-upon child about God would produce the same kind of belief in the child then as it does now - a cultural belief. Which is not much of a belief at all - as countless atheists brought up with cultural Christianity will tell you. Cultural beliefs are easily dispensed with.
Cultural beliefs or not, they are beliefs. Atheists who were raised Christians didn't leave Christianity and start worshipping the Greek gods, did they? More often than not, they become atheists, that is, believing in no god. And you still have people with cultural beliefs that still believe in God no matter what.
Furthermore, earlier you argued that people believe because God acted no matter who was doing the believing. In this case, those people with cultural beliefs should have faith just as strong as Noah's because they believe that God acted. If they can have faith as strong as Noah's why not Noah's immediate descendants?
As an aside, I'm curious about evidence of God you suppose a post-flood child to have available to it - aside from her parents testimony I mean?
I imagine the fact that there are no plants, the bodies of dead things everywhere, very few animals inhabiting the world, sediment everywhere, a huge empty world, uprooted trees all over the place would be evidence enough for a global flood for anyone.
Even a believer relies on God's continuing action to sustain his faith. If God 'withdraws' the persons faith wavers, if God comes close, the person can move mountains.
But you're assuming that God didn't act upon Noah's immediate descendants. You're assuming that God decided to go on vacation right after flood until Jesus was born. What, was God tired from all the miraculous stuff he had to do during the flood? I guess I'd be pretty tired too if I had to resculpt the entire world, find water to produce a global flood, suspend the laws of physics so Noah and the ark don't get fried to ash and then find someplace to put that water away after a year.
But seriously, what makes you think God wasn't acting upon Noah's descendants?

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 10-14-2009 7:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 10-15-2009 4:57 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 74 (530809)
10-15-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
10-12-2009 4:43 AM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
the problem with the word 'gentile' being used there is that the ancient hebrews called people from other nations 'Pagans' not gentiles. Gentile was a word that came many centuries later.
Irrelevant. Whether they called these other people "gentiles," "pagans," or "Mary Sue," the point you seem to be deliberately trying to avoid is that these other people couldn't possibly exist because all the people who existed came from Noah.
quote:
and if you look at wikipedia
Now, you know better than that. Wikipedia is not a source. At best, it's a place to start researching, but it is not any authority.
But again, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what word was used to describe these other people. According to the events established in Gen 9, these other people literally do not exist because everybody died in the flood and Noah is now the patriarch of all humanity.
quote:
because its accurate and doesnt give the strange impression that the writer of genesis stuffed up some how.
But they clearly did. The word used to describe these people is irrelevant. The events established previous indicate that everybody on the planet died except for 8 people. None of these other people be they "pagans" or "maritime peoples" or "Susan" are in existence.
Everybody's dead.
But, as is typical for the Bible in general and Genesis in particular, the narrative has forgotten what has come before.
That is because this story literally has nothing to do with what came before. It was written by a different author at a different time to tell a different story. For crying out loud, the story of Noah's flood changes authors and stories in mid-sentence!
So it is not surprising at all to find that Gen 10 makes absolutely no sense given what happened in Gen 9.
It has nothing to do with it.
quote:
if you took a collection of steven kings novels and combined them into 1 novel continuous novel, what sort of sense do you think it will make if you tried to read it like 1 novel? It would make very little sense.
THAT'S MY POINT!
I don't know how else to say it to make it clearer to you: The Bible is literally equivalent to pulling out a chapter from dozens of books that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, shuffling them together in no particular order, sometimes even interleaving pages and even actual sentences together, and pretending that it makes some sort of sense.
It is the closest you can get to gibberish without being actual word salad.
quote:
For the same reason you cant read Genesis like a novel...its a combination of several different books.
THAT'S MY POINT!
When a sentence literally starts with one author and story and ends with a different author and story, the resulting passage is not rational. It is gibberish.
quote:
You need to read them individually on their own merit.
But that still doesn't help anything. We can unfold the two stories of Noah that are described in Gen 6-9, but that doesn't make them meritorious. At least one of them is a crock of shit because IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY BY A DIFFERENT AUTHOR WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER ONE.
The fact that you can write a story about John and Marsha and I can write a story about John and Marsha completely independently of you and someone else can literally shuffle those two stories together such that one sentence starts with my words and ends with yours doesn't mean that there is anything of merit in that pile of gibberish.
quote:
One does not necesarily begin where the previous one left off. Its not chronological.
THAT'S MY POINT!
The reason why the text jumps around in such bizarre, schizophrenic ways is because the text was literally not written by a single person but rather but multiple people who had nothing to do with each other and had their stories cobbled together but a bunch of fools.
The text is as close as you can get to gibberish without being word salad.
quote:
if you know that then why are you critisizing it for not being in logical order.
Because the reason why it isn't in any logical order is because there is no coherency to the text of any kind. None of the passages have anything to do with each other. That's why the story of Noah is told twice. Ever notice that Noah gets on the ark twice? The animals get on the ark twice in different ways? The flood happens twice? The ark lands twice? Land is found twice? They leave the ark twice? That's because there are literally two different stories being told by two different people who had absolutely nothing to do with each other and had their work literally shuffled together, sometimes with a sentence starting with one and ending with another, and turning into a completely incoherent mess.
So of course it can't be read chronologically. That's because the individual pieces literally have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The are completely separate, isolated fragments of multiple oral traditions that were cobbled together.
That's why Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict each other. They're two different stories told by two different people. That's why the god of Gen 1 is a polytheistic god (since that is where Judaism came from) while the god of Gen 2 is a monotheistic god.
The reason why Gen 10 makes no sense with regard to events established in Gen 9 is not because of a chronological skip but rather because Gen 10 is from a completely different author who had absolutely nothing to do with Gen 9 but had his work shoved in after and now we're all supposed to pretend that something coherent was done.
quote:
The books were placed in the order they are in by early translators...they didnt know the order that moses wrote them
But Moses didn't write the Torah. It contains a description of his funeral. It is impossible to write about your own funeral.
The Torah was written but multiple, unknown authors, none of whom had anything to do with each other, cobbled together by some priests, and then redacted.
No wonder it's gibberish.
quote:
he didnt number them, the translators did.
Who cares about numbers? I know there are no chapters or verses in the Torah. That's irrelevant. The point is that the text makes no sense.
It is the closest you can get to gibberish without being actual word salad.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 10-12-2009 4:43 AM Peg has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 72 of 74 (530818)
10-15-2009 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Izanagi
10-14-2009 4:37 PM


Re: The source of faith
iano writes:
God is not restricted to manifesting himself empirically (ie: "seen") in order that he be made manifest to someone. Whether through empirical manifestation or no, faith is unaltered: the person believes because God acted - whether that person is Noah or me.
Izanaqi writes:
Then what's preventing the immediate descendants of Noah from believing in the same way? What makes you so special that you can believe without empirical observation and Noah's immediate descendants cannot?
The same thing that's apparently preventing you and others on this site from believing: God hasn't acted empirically/unempirically in your/their case so as to enable you/them to believe.
What's special about me? Nothing much as it happens - other than my having met the criteria God has for revealing his existance to someone (via empirical means or unempirical). I say "nothing special" because everyone has the potential to meet this criteria (for God wants that all men be saved).
The main point: faith arises from direct act of God. Faith arising by transmission of stories about God is cultural/blind.
-
Cultural beliefs or not, they are beliefs.
..and as distinct and separate from God-source faith as it is possible for a belief to be .. let us retain in our thoughts so as not to conflate the two ideas. Lets's call belief1 belief of the God sourced variety and belief2 as any other sort of belief
-
Atheists who were raised Christians didn't leave Christianity and start worshipping the Greek gods, did they? More often than not, they become atheists, that is, believing in no god. And you still have people with cultural beliefs that still believe in God no matter what.
And what is the essential difference between a cultural Christian and an atheist w.r.t. God if not ...absolutely nothing?
The cultural Christian is an unbeliever who places his trust in a false god that happens to be modelled on God (much like the muslim/jew worships a false god modelled on God). In his worshipping of an idol, he maintains himself in a state of rejection with respect to God. The atheist worships a different idol in his maintaining a similar rejection of God: he believes in naturalism, science, humanism and looks to these in order to answer questions that demand answering such as "who am I" and "where do I go when I die". The cultural Christian's false god gives him answers, as does the atheists false god.
-
Furthermore, earlier you argued that people believe because God acted no matter who was doing the believing. In this case, those people with cultural beliefs should have faith just as strong as Noah's because they believe that God acted. If they can have faith as strong as Noah's why not Noah's immediate descendants?
I'm not sure what your first sentence means. People believe in God because they witness God acting and..??
But to deal with your point. A person believing something because they are told about it, isn't the same as someone believing because they witnessed it themselves. The faith of the former is based on trusting the witness, the faith of the latter based on direct evidence.
-
I imagine the fact that there are no plants, the bodies of dead things everywhere, very few animals inhabiting the world, sediment everywhere, a huge empty world, uprooted trees all over the place would be evidence enough for a global flood for anyone
By the time a child was conceived, born and raised to the point of wondering about such things, such evidence would have disappeared under new growth/will have rotted away. Having no particular reason to question the testimony of their parents I'd see cultural believers in the making post-Noah, with all the sticking power that cultural anything has.
I look to the rapid evaporation of cultural Christianity in Ireland between the Pope's visit (involving huge crowds) in 1979 and the arrival of the Celtic Tiger economy in the mid-90's. In those days people looked curiously at you if you didn't go to church on a Sunday, now they look at you curiously if you do.
-
But you're assuming that God didn't act upon Noah's immediate descendants..
But seriously, what makes you think God wasn't acting upon Noah's descendants?
I'm merely applying a biblical notion to this particular case: faith arises from action on Gods part. And so, if unbelief is manifest then the biblical notion of faith tells us that God isn't acting. This is not to say that nobody believed post-flood, for clearly some did.
Which more or less reflects the situations at all times: most people don't believe and some people do.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I was to say that (biblically) definitionally, faith = action of God on a person. So whenever you see unbelief/lack of faith in the Bible you know, by definition, that this is because God isn't acting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 4:37 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 8:39 AM iano has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 73 of 74 (530842)
10-15-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
10-15-2009 4:57 AM


Re: The source of faith
What's special about me? Nothing much as it happens - other than my having met the criteria God has for revealing his existance to someone (via empirical means or unempirical). I say "nothing special" because everyone has the potential to meet this criteria (for God wants that all men be saved).
So why didn't God show his existence (empirically or unempirically) to the immediate descendants of Noah?
The atheist worships a different idol in his maintaining a similar rejection of God: he believes in naturalism, science, humanism and looks to these in order to answer questions that demand answering such as "who am I" and "where do I go when I die"
I reject this definition of an atheist. Atheists worship no God because they don't believe in a God. Atheists do not believe in naturalism, science, or humanism - they accept that the world around us has natural reasons, that science can explain those reasons and that humanism is a guide to moral behavior. And to be honest, I believe atheist aren't concerned with such questions such as "Who am I" or "Where do I go when I die" simply because the answer is "I define who I am" and "In the ground." To atheists, the here and now and how we act in the here and now is the most important aspect of life.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means. People believe in God because they witness God acting and..??
From what you said in Message 68:
quote:
Whether through empirical manifestation or no, faith is unaltered: the person believes because God acted - whether that person is Noah or me.
you seem to be making contradictory arguments. Your quote from the Bible has Jesus saying:
quote:
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed
which means to me that people who don't have evidence of God but still believe still have a faith worth blessing (i.e. a strong faith). You even say that faith is unaltered whether God has acted or not implying faith is faith. But then you argue:
quote:
A God-acted-upon parent telling a not-yet-God-acted-upon child about God would produce the same kind of belief in the child then as it does now - a cultural belief. Which is not much of a belief at all - as countless atheists brought up with cultural Christianity will tell you. Cultural beliefs are easily dispensed with.
which means to me that a person who believes but hasn't seen an act of God has a weak faith.
How do you reconcile the two?
By the time a child was conceived, born and raised to the point of wondering about such things, such evidence would have disappeared under new growth/will have rotted away.
I'm sorry, trees take time to grow and spread, animals need time to bear and raise their young and spread, corpses need time to decompose, etc. The children and grandchildren of Noah would've seen a desolate and empty world. It would've taken decades just for the part of the world they're in to start flourishing again.
faith arises from action on Gods part.
Which again begs the question: Why is it that you have faith and the immediate descendants of Noah do not? You argue that you have seen God acting in your life, then why didn't God act in the lives of Noah's immediate descendants?
The same thing that's apparently preventing you and others on this site from believing:
Don't make assumptions about people you don't anything about. I am very spiritual about what I believe and I am not what anyone could call atheistic.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 10-15-2009 4:57 AM iano has not replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 74 of 74 (541475)
01-03-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
10-13-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Re: Faith
ICANT writes:
Actually Jesus was not the Son of God or a Son of God. Jesus was God.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?.
Was Jesus (God) crying out to himself? Or are these the words of a man who has finally realized that he is not the Son of God or a Son of God?
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2009 10:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024