Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Jersey Girl]

If you're not saying that the Caananites knew the earth was round and that other countries existed, what are you saying when you refer to a global flood?

Dear God, Jersey Girl, Give me a Break! Wouldn't you rather abandon this argument and move on to one in which you have more footing?

What am I saying when I refer to a global flood?

Gen. 6:13
...the end of all flesh is com before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them: and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:17 And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


Ok. Another weak argument demolished.

By the way, I gave up after just those two verses. The two chapters are full of references to flooding the entire Earth.

I'd love for you to finally quantify the point you are trying to make.

And again, this is ancient Caananite. Did the Caananite's understand that the earth was round, that there were other "countries" and have a concept of global?

If they didn't, how can you hold the above to a global flood perspective?

What the bloody hell does the Caananite's grasp on geography have to do with anything?

Even if they thought the Earth was flat, how does that take away from the global aspect of the flood? Couldn't God have flooded a flat earth just as easily as a round one?

Sheesh... If I don't respond to more of your posts in a timely manner, you know why...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you failed to respond to any of my posts here. I have yet to see you answer on point here or support your position that the Flood is a falsifiable claim, much less "demolish" an argument.

You ask:

What the bloody hell does the Caananite's grasp on geography have to do with anything?

Even if they thought the Earth was flat, how does that take away from the global aspect of the flood? Couldn't God have flooded a flat earth just as easily as a round one?

The Caananite's, who produced the Flood story, grasp on geography has everything to do with the issue of local vs global flood.

I suppose that God could have flooded a flat earth just as easily as a round one, however, the Caananite's concept of what constituted "the earth" is what the story is based on. It takes away from the global flood perspective because the Caananite's had no concept of global as you do today.

For you to take the story out of the ancient cultural context in which it was written and attempt to "demolish" the global aspects (in these exchanges) based on YOUR understanding of what constitutes "global" is wrong-headed at best.

I have no problem with the story viewed as myth or allegory, however, your claim of "global" has nothing to do with the author's understanding of global.

The Bible doesn't teach, as you claim, a global flood in the way that global is understood today. For you to frame an ancient story written by ancient authors in contemporary terms, is way off base.

[_the road to hana]

I have a problem swallowing this sort of logic, considering that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, let alone formed a religious following.

So, when do you think Christianity originated? Sixteenth century?

You seem to be generally uninformed about religious history, whether or not you agree with the theology.

I'm not sure exactly, apparently I am uninformed in regards to the exact date. Certainly it was long after Jesus' supposed death. I would guess that Christianity - as we know it today - began sometime around 64 AD, but that is just a guess.

That would still predate the canonization of the Bible.

I am, however, not uninformed in regards to the complete lack of evidence (which is compelling, considering there was a number of historians alive at the time) to support the idea that Jesus Christ was an actual person, let alone the idea that he started a religion called Christianity.

Thus when you say - or quote someone that says - there were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life passed on verbally, I say you are uninformed in regards to religious history and need to do better to display your wealth of intellect on this subject.

Could you point out to me where I did that? You must have me confused with someone else.

[_Ray A]

This is the kind of vagueity ( I think I just made that word up, but I like it ) that moderates hide behind. "The Bible doesn't really mean that... the authors could be mistaken..." And it is precisely my point - religious moderation is no more deserving of respect than religious fundamentalism.

Now you're supporting fundamentalists over moderates, because they at least "believe the Bible literally". It's tempting for me to think that what you really like is a black and white view of everything.

At least fundamentalists have doctrine to support their beliefs. Moderates seem at odds with both the fundamentalists and the skeptics. If you had made these claims 50 years ago you would be ridiculed by your own clergy. You wouldn't claim this 50 years ago.

Have you heard of Albert Schweitzer? Leo Tolstoy? That was far more than "50 years ago". I'm inclined to agree with RTH now that you haven't done much reading.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK

By the way, I gave up after just those two verses. The two chapters are full of references to flooding the entire Earth.

Yes, they are full of references flooding the "entire Earth" in terms of what the ancients knew as the "entire Earth".

Let's try that again:

Caananites: Knew the land of Caanan and immediate surrounding areas.
Caananites: Via orality transmitted a flood story generationally about "the earth"
as they knew it...Caanan and immediate surrounding areas.

GoodK: Decides that the Flood Story has to do with the entire planet earth.

Do you see it yet?

[_The Nehor]

This coupled with your statement that the Church tried to teach that the Earth was flat make me question if you've learned much history beyond what is in a High School textbook.

As tedious as it might be, Nehor, you might want to go back and reread the thread.

Nowhere did GoodK suggest that the Church tried to teach that the earth was flat.

Any mention of a flat earth was made by me, and I did not suggest, or state, that the church taught that.

I'm referring to his saying this in another thread.

I never said that the church taught that the earth was flat. Nice try.

I was talking to JAK. I quoted JAK in the original statement. Hana then tied it to you for some reason.

[_Jersey Girl]

If you're not saying that the Caananites knew the earth was round and that other countries existed, what are you saying when you refer to a global flood?

Dear God, Jersey Girl, Give me a Break! Wouldn't you rather abandon this argument and move on to one in which you have more footing?

What am I saying when I refer to a global flood?

Gen. 6:13
...the end of all flesh is com before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them: and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:17 And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


Ok. Another weak argument demolished.

By the way, I gave up after just those two verses. The two chapters are full of references to flooding the entire Earth.

I'd love for you to finally quantify the point you are trying to make.

You have to distinguish between people perceiving the flood to be universal in a geographical as opposed to an anthropological sense.

It's a little like spilling milk, and saying it "went everywhere." Perhaps it went everywhere that was relevant to the statement. But it didn't literally "go everywhere."

It's possible that for authors of the flood story their sense was that all mankind was wiped out by what seemed to be a flood that went everywhere. But in context, without the abilities we have from a technological and communications standpoint, that would be impossible for them to determine.

Yes! It didn't go everywhere as you know it....because THEY didn't know it. They wrote in terms of the "everywhere" that they knew.

\o/\o/\o/

[_Ray A]

Yes, they are full of references flooding the "entire Earth" in terms of what the ancients knew as the "entire Earth".

Same applies to Caesar "taxing the whole world".

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

Hope he didn't miss Australian Aborigines. :)

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, they are full of references flooding the "entire Earth" in terms of what the ancients knew as the "entire Earth".

Same applies to Caesar "taxing the whole world".

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

Hope he didn't miss Australian Aborigines. :)

Yes! See, that's what happens when people read and think at the same time.

What a skill, eh?

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

Now I'm going to say something that will come off totally irritating, but what else is new, huh?

I have engaged and been engaged by skeptics for several years now. The arguments that you put up to "prove" Christianity false, ridiculous, etc, aren't arguments that you've studied and reasoned out for yourself. You are parroting arguments borrowed from others. The one's that you've presented so far are what I privately refer to as "skepti-drivel". That is to say they are claims without sound proof or solid reasoning.

I know this like I know my own name to the point where I could write your posts on this thread.

Until you're able to back your claims with sound reasoning that you yourself have developed and studied out, someone will always be able to pick them part.

Skepti-drivel 101:

Come ON believer! Are you saying that the GLOBAL flood REALLY happened? THE WHOLE EARTH was flooded? That's what YOUR Bible says! Don't you even BELIEVE YOUR Bible?


GoodK, the only problem with that little strawman argument is that the authors didn't write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. They wrote about, at best, a localized flood. Whether or not there really was a localized flood is irrelevant, it is a story about judgement and most likely allegory.

Had you been a moderately well read skeptic, you would have challenged me with quotes from Christ regarding the "days of Noe" and even then, I could still pick apart your argument about that quote and then turn around and challenge your using a quote from Christ to support your argument when you yourself have challenged the historical Jesus on this very thread.

That is not to say that all skeptic arguments are skepti-drivel. But the one you attempted to defend sure is. Your trying to place a contemporary meaning on an ancient text is no less "ridiculous" than the religion you attempted to use it against.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hey GoodK, Good-stuff! Ya got 'em hanging on your string! just keep pulling it. It'll take a long time to haul some out of their cave. :-)

A lot like the story of those folks wondering in the desert for 40 years. The old generation, with their cluttered minds and misconceptions, had to die before entering their "promised land" and a better life. Ever thus, eh? So "we" have Compromised Christianism influencing "us" to the same moderated falsehoods of origin and destiny.

It is to me unbelievable that seemingly intelligent folks require "verse & page" of primitive mythology to substantiate understanding and findings that "we" have in hand?! These same folks use elecrticity, wirelessness, have joint replacements, defy gravity at 30,000 feet flying through the air at 400+ MPH?? Go figger :-)

Oh, i nearly forgot: Most of the same folks also have a fixation on Balls: Golf, Base, Foot, Cricket, and go crazy watching others do their thing with them. And they even PAY-BIG-BUCKS to watch them. And, they pay to take their kids to artifical Adventure Lands...

Conclusion: They enjoy Fantasy. Don't be impatient GoodK. Future generations will deal--being better informed, and more enlightened--with reality. They might even click into truths burried within the myths that could bring "peace-on-earth". Not glory in heaven. IMSCO. Warm regards, Roger