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?

[_GoodK]

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.

[_the road to hana]

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.

[_GoodK]

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...

[_the road to hana]

Ok. Another weak argument demolished.

GoodK, it's your argument that's suffering here. You've asserted that Christians believe in a literal, universal flood.

It's been demonstrated that's not correct.

2.1 billion Christians in the world, and at least 1.1 billion of them don't. So no matter how much you want to argue with Jersey Girl about your own interpretation of Genesis, it won't make your assertion that all Christians believe that any more correct.

[_GoodK]

I never thought or implied that the Bible as we know it today existed at Jesus' time.

Thanks for that reference, but does it demonstrate that there was a Christian religion before the Bible was canonized?

I'd like to hope you're joking in asking the question.

I said, "Why do Christians believe Jesus is the savior? Because the Bible says so."

You said, "Christianity predates the Bible, so my premise is flawed."

I asked for some substance, you responded with a reference to some sort of blog or online article that asserts, "Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude, wrote the Gospels, letters and books that became the Bible's New Testament. "

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.

[_GoodK]

Ok. Another weak argument demolished.

GoodK, it's your argument that's suffering here. You've asserted that Christians believe in a literal, universal flood.

It's been demonstrated that's not correct.

2.1 billion Christians in the world, and at least 1.1 billion of them don't. So no matter how much you want to argue with Jersey Girl about your own interpretation of Genesis, it won't make your assertion that all Christians believe that any more correct.

You aren't grasping the spirit of the discussion very well. Jersey Girl (although she has managed to loose me a few times) is trying to assert in a round-about way that the flood could have happened, and the Bible doesn't say it is on a global scale so the Bible isn't at odds with facts. I demolished that argument.

If I didn't, why don't you defend it.

You are arguing something different, that Christians don't really believe in the flood literally. I also demonstrated that to be false, although I already conceded that more "moderate" (remember that discussion we had, about who was being moderate) Christians are quick to disavow a belief in the literal global flood. Your argument is far more grounded than Jersey Girls. Please don't try and combine the two.

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.

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. 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.

And so far, your best justification for believing the Bible to be true over the Book of Mormon is: words don't mean what they say they mean, "it is like saying milk spilled everywhere".

I think I'll end today's discussion on that note and tell you ladies goodnight.
It's been stimulating.

Best,

GoodK

[_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.

[_GoodK]

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.

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.

[Guest]

Ok. Another weak argument demolished.

GoodK, it's your argument that's suffering here. You've asserted that Christians believe in a literal, universal flood.

It's been demonstrated that's not correct.

2.1 billion Christians in the world, and at least 1.1 billion of them don't. So no matter how much you want to argue with Jersey Girl about your own interpretation of Genesis, it won't make your assertion that all Christians believe that any more correct.

You aren't grasping the spirit of the discussion very well. Jersey Girl (although she has managed to loose me a few times) is trying to assert in a round-about way that the flood could have happened, and the Bible doesn't say it is on a global scale so the Bible isn't at odds with facts. I demolished that argument.

If I didn't, why don't you defend it.

I'm not here to defend either the Bible, or Christianity, except to point out flaws in your assertions.

You are arguing something different, that Christians don't really believe in the flood literally.

No, I'm arguing that you're incorrect in asserting that Christians (as in all Christians) believe in a literal, universal flood. You're making this somehow an all-or-nothing proposition, which I reject.

If I state that not all Christians believe that, it means just that. Not all Christians believe that. It does not mean that no Christians believe that. You're taking a sample and imposing it on the whole.

I also demonstrated that to be false, although I already conceded that more "moderate" (remember that discussion we had, about who was being moderate) Christians are quick to disavow a belief in the literal global flood.

You seemed to be confused about who actually was "moderate," after it was pointed out to you that Catholics reject the universality of the flood.

Your argument is far more grounded than Jersey Girls. Please don't try and combine the two.

Don't worry. That's your department.

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.

I don't know who the "you" is you're referring to, but I'm not making the claim at all, just pointing out to you that others do. And rejection of the universality of the flood originated over 200 years ago, so again, your dates are off.

And so far, your best justification for believing the Bible to be true over the Book of Mormon is: words don't mean what they say they mean, "it is like saying milk spilled everywhere".

Again, I'm not participating on this thread to defend the Bible or Christianity over the Book of Mormon or Mormonism. I'm pointing out to you flaws in your argument. And so far, there are plenty.

You want someone to tell you, as a non-believer, how Christianity is better, but then you make false and uninformed claims about Christian beliefs or origins? What type of discussion do you really hope to have?