Norseman

To: "The Tiny Saint"

Ok, so you adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible? Alright, well besides that I had a few other questions. I realize these questions will probably be tough for you, but please do your best.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't the devil previously an angel? So where did he get evil?

How does god know what we are going to do if we are free to choose what we do? If god already knows what we're going to do, doesn't that mean it's been predetermined?

How would they know this? Wasn't Noah the only survivor of the flood?

The length is fine, and your grammer/spelling was fairly good, no need to apologize. The rule of thumb is, if what you write uses periods, a few commas, and has 49/50 words spelled correctly with the erroneous words being decipherable, then you're good. Anyway, it is good to see new people on these forums, especially christians, hopefully one day we won't have to hide the fact that we're atheist in fear of vandalization. We're not quite the communist, baby eating, satan worshippers that we've been made out to be

Drew J

I have never heard of any scientists believing on sufficient evidence that there was once a world wide flood. I have however heard of the theory that all the continents were once joined together and formed one whole land mass which scientists call Pangea; that means the other part was all water.
Here is a site that questions the validity of the global flood.

The Tiny Saint

To Norseman:
Well, yeah I guess that you could say that. I am not a professional theologian, but I will do my best.

I am not entirely sure. I have also heard something like that. Just wait a minute, I'll ask my Grandparents (as they are retired Salvation Army Officers)... They said that the devil and his followers (other bad angels) got jelous of God and started an up-rising. God threw them out of Heaven as a result. This is mentioned in the Bible, I just can't find it exactly. I'll post it's location once I find it, okay? That is where the devil went "batty". He like all the other angels, would have known the difference between right and wrong - as Adam and Eve did when they ate the forbidden fruit.

That is a good question. I also asked this question, and then on day the Warcry, the Salvation Army's magazine in Australia did an article on this. They write and I quote:
"The greatest dilemma with God's omniscience is how it affects our free will. God hasn't made us mindless robots; we are free to make our own decisions and act independently of His wishes. But if God knows I will dod X then I have to do X, don't I? In that case I have no free will. I can't do Z when God expects me to do X; this would override His omniscience. In fact, you could argue that God's ability to know exactly what I'm going to do really results in fatalism - the doctrine that dictates that the things I do are the only things I can do; I have no choice in the matter.
Foreknowledge is forewarning:
Possibly the answer is not so much that God preordains what will happen, but that His foreknowledge allows Him to know what will happen. For example, I know that if I throw a brick at a house window hard enough the window will break (unless of course it's double glazed); there will be shattered glass everywhere, and the brick will end up on the floor inside the house....." The go on "... God's omniscience allows him to know what we will do, think or say without having preordained or determined it Himself. To suggest otherwise would limit our God-given free will..." [Warcry - The Salvation Army Australia, Vol. 123, No. 14, 3 April 2004, p. 11 ~ Mal Davies] The above is only an exert to save space.

Noah and his family, including his sons and their wifes were the only ones who survived the Great Flood as you state. Good point, but - by the Biblical account - everyone here on this planet now are descendents of Noah and than if we go back further we are all descendents of Adam (the Human Genome Project has determined that there is only one race - the Human Race). Sometime after the Flood, all people were at the city called Babel. God then changed the languages of the peoples and the people than scattered themselves all over the world. Now since all of these people groups came from Noah and his family, they would all have (or most would have) stories about a Global Flood. So hence, the story would be passed down through generations. Many of these people groups turned their backs on God and made up their own gods. These new religions included the story of the Flood in them as it was a part of their history. Well, that is my guess.

Yeah I know. You guys are in number though. Especially on other forums you mention the word Christian or Creation and it is like they say "There is a Christian, let's get him boys!" It may just be apart of my imagination. Some atheists are okay.

Jack the Bodiless

The Tiny Saint:
I realize that you were basically stating your creed here, but why did you feel the need to add "there are many evidences for this too"? This, too, is a statement of belief: yet you say this as if it were fact.
No, it doesn't. Science and history clearly indicate that this is not true. Again, it might be part of your belief that this is so, but you state this as if it was fact.

The Tiny Saint

To Jeack the Bodiless:
I never say anything without having the evidence to back it up. If you want I have a list of criteia here that suggest a Divine Authorship of the Bible:
* The Bible's amazing unity - the message is constant despite being penned by more than 40 authors from over 19 different walks of life over some 1,600 years. The first and last books (Genesis and Revelation) dovetail so perfectly - telling of "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained".

* The Bible's historical accuracy - Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever, trained in mid-nineteenth century German historical scepticism and so did not believe that the New Testament documents were historically reliable. However, his archaeological investigations drove him to see that his scepticism was unwarranted. At many specific points archaeology confirms the Bible's accuracy. [For comprehensive information on the Bible and archaeology, see <http://www.christiananswers.net>.]

* The Bible's scientific accuracy - Some examples: that the Earth is round (Isa. 40:22); the Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); the hydrologic cycle [Sarfati, J., 1997. The Wonders of Water. Creation 20(1):44-46); that Orion is seperating and Pleadies is staying together (Job 38:31); the first and second laws of thermodynamics (e.g. Isa. 51:6); and many other things [See Morris, H.M., 1984. The Biblical Basis of Modern Science.]

* The Bible's prophetic accuracy.

* The Bible's civilizing influence.

* The Bible's absolute honesty - the enemies of God's people are often praised while the heroes of the faith have their failures recorded. People would like to really hammer their eneimes and put them down as much as possible - not lift them up.

* The Bible's life-transforming message - the Bible has transformed many lives of criminals, prostitutes and "down-and-outers".

* The traditions of hundreds of indigenous peoples from around the world - stories of a global Flood, for example - corroborate the Bible's account of history.

NearNihil Experience

Nit picking...


JOB 9:6
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.


Can't have it both ways and call it inerrant and consistent and scientifically useful.... Suspended on the Pillars or nothing? One can not be allegory or poetic flair, both are accurate, as the Bible as whole is accurate.

Consequently, the earth is suspended on pillars which shake, and is suspended on nothing.

Jack the Bodiless

There is no such unity. The Bible is riddled with contradictions. Not just the trivial stuff such as the size of armies, but some rather major stuff such as whether God or Satan was responsible for something (like David's census), or how we achieve salvation (faith, works or predestination), or whether it's right to punish people for the sins of others.
It's reasonable to assume that the Bible should contain much that is historically accurate, because of when it was written. But it also contains historical inaccuracies, such as the sequence of the Persian kings, and the Exodus story.
The Bible's authors believed that the Earth was a flat circle covered by a dome: this is what Isaiah was referring to. It also contradicts itself by saying that the Earth is supported on "foundations" and "pillars", not just floating in space.

It is also wrong about the six-day creation, the Flood, the stars as little lights attached to the Firmament dome, and so forth.
The Bible contains many FAILED prophecies. And it apparently doesn't contain any verifiably correct prophecies at all: upon analysis, they invariably turn out to be out-of-context verses that actually refer to other things, or they were written after the event, or there is no independent confirmation that the "fulfillment" actually happened.

We're still waiting for a genuine example that works.
Try telling that to the victims of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the massacres in the New World.

...Except, of course, that you can't.
There are also plenty of slanders against rival tribes in the Old Testament.
...And it has also inspired bigots.
Flood stories are common where people live near rivers. The details contradict Genesis.

Jade

This thread was split from this thread in EoG.

NottyImp

Gee, thanks, I know the odd Christian who isn't a closed-minded bigot, as well.

Norseman

If the gene quantity is only going down, and Adam and Eve/Noah and his family were the only ones alive at their respective time period, how did we manage to have Africans and Caucasians with black and white skin color? Wouldn't that imply that our genes are gaining information, not losing it?

A validation: Africanized Bees have not always existed have they? Doesn't that mean that they are gaining genetic information as well?

Another validation: Many species of cats, dogs, horses, and chickens have been selectively breeded over time, doesn't that mean they are also gaining genetic information, not losing it?

A final validation: Various people have odd mutations, such as extra digits, webbed feet, double joints, conjoined siblings (simese twins), and other such strange and random things. These were caused by their genes, and obviously their parents did not share these traits, doesn't this also show that genetic information has increased?

As Murphy's Law (one of them at least) goes "Professionals are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.", it only helps you argue if you don't make the same points that we've all seen time and again so much that it becomes routine to refute them. Besides, it keeps us on our toes. Debate is probably the most excellent thinking game man has ever invented.