One God.

[ding]

lol.... Mainstream christian dogma? Haven't you heard all of that crap before? You never heard any of this, right? Hmmm. lets see.



BTW, Not into obscure or bizarre cults at all but definitely just some weirdo...a stranger in a very strange land.

If you think that I am weird already, you should see me after drinking a vat of communion wine..

So you got a link or not?

Most Christians believe in the veracity of the bible, so ya, it's not mainstream dogma. I've heard of that before, every believer here doesn't believe in a worldwide flood, merely a regional one and in fact, I can't find ONE person here who believes the flood was worldwide.

Yes, the flood was worldwide, a deluge of torrential rain that lasted for weeks cause by a celestial object impacting over the ocean.

And yes, even the mountains of Israel were all swept away.

So do you have any geological proof or any kind of proof whatsoever for a "celestial object impacting over the ocean" and the ensuing worldwide flood?

There is an impact crater 25 times the size of meteor crater in Arizona under 12,000 feet of water on the floor of the Indian Ocean.

Don't worry, I can hold my breath for a really long time..I'll bring you some samples of stishovite as soon as I return from the bottom of the sea.

Ok, but do you have a link to some scientific data that ties that impact with a global flood? Or are you just making this up?

Every major culture has an account of a great flood. The Chinese even captured the account as symbols in their written language 1500 years before Moses penned the account in Genesis.

And yet you still want to pretend it is a fairy tale that never happened.

You probably think the account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization is a fairy tale too.

 

[Taz]

If there is more than 1 universe, then there must be more than 1 god. Too many morons in this universe already. I doubt that they'd give this god any more.
Pure logic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

 

[Foxfyre]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

The time element is unknown in most. But it is true that pretty much all the ancient cultures in the near east had a flood story in their respective lore. We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth, most especially one that wiped out all the creatures on Earth other than those on the Ark, just didn't happen.

But when you consider that the ancient people of the Bible and other inhabitants of Earth at that time had extremely limited knowledge of the shape or geology or composition of our planet or even what existed beyond a few day's walking distance or donkey or camel ride. They would see things much differently than we would now. To them waters that stretched as far as the eye could see would appear to cover the whole world.

So was the story of Noah historical? Allegory? Myth? I have my own opinion about that and will not try to dissuade the faith of anybody who believes differently than I do about that. But it is probable or at least possible that it reflected the oral tradition of a great flood and how the people of God survived it so that their story could continue unbroken.

 

[RWNJ]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

The time element is unknown in most. But it is true that pretty much all the ancient cultures in the near east had a flood story in their respective lore. We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth, most especially one that wiped out all the creatures on Earth other than those on the Ark, just didn't happen.

But when you consider that the ancient people of the Bible and other inhabitants of Earth at that time had extremely limited knowledge of the shape or geology or composition of our planet or even what existed beyond a few day's walking distance or donkey or camel ride. They would see things much differently than we would now. To them waters that stretched as far as the eye could see would appear to cover the whole world.

So was the story of Noah historical? Allegory? Myth? I have my own opinion about that and will not try to dissuade the faith of anybody who believes differently than I do about that. But it is probable or at least possible that it reflected the oral tradition of a great flood and how the people of God survived it so that their story could continue unbroken.

I look at it this way. Every historical event mentioned in Scripture, that can be verified by other means, has been 100 percent accurate. SO I have to conclude that the Genesis flood is exactly what the Bible says it was. A global flood. There have been many attempts to debunk it, but none have been successful. In fact, there is a sediment layer that encompasses the entire Earth. Where did that come from?

 

[Czernobog]

There seems to be a lot of confusion, not to mention some wilful ignorance about the nature of God.

Many Christians believe in the Trinity and that Jesus was God incarnate.

Some even point to the Trinity and state that Christians worship three Gods.

Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, look at a chicken egg. It has three separate parts. The yolk, the egg white, and the shell. So, which one of those parts is NOT the egg. They all are.

It's the same with God. One God, three persons, all sharing the essence of God. All equal. One God. But three in nature.

Get it now?

Well...just to play devil's advocate here (taking my atheist hat off for a moment), Jews would have a problem with this concept of yours. There is precisely zero references in the Tanakh about a triune nature of God. There is not even anything suggesting that the Mossaich is to be divine in nature. He was conceptualised as entirely human. It's one of the problems they have with Christians conflating Jesus with their Mossiach. If Christians wanted to go this route, they might have done better to follow the Islamic example, just bypassed the "Old Testament" all together, create their own holy book, and separated themselves from Judaism as much as possible.

Just an observation...

Except that they believed that the mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days and the dead would be resurrected.

Jewish prophecy and Christian prophecy blend quite nicely if you believe that they are fulfilled by the same man at different points in time.

Which, again, does not comport with either Jewish Tanakh, nor Jewish religious tradition. Nothing in Jewish teaching allows for the Mossiach to get a second bite at the apple. A man either fulfils all of Messianic prophesy, while he lives, or he is not the Mossiach. Once again, this whole "He's coming back" thing is another reason why Christians should have simply separated themselves from Judaism right from the start, like the Muslims did. By tying themselves to the Jews with the inclusion of the "Old Testament", they forced themselves to create an explanation for why Jesus didn't fulfil all of the messianic prophesies. Unfortunately, their "fix" flies directly in the face of the Tannakh, and creates a further rift between Judaism, and Christianity. And you still haven't reconciled the fact that Jewish teachings, and writings - and thus, the entire first half of your holy book - directly contradict the Christian concept of a triune God.

 

[Foxfyre]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

The time element is unknown in most. But it is true that pretty much all the ancient cultures in the near east had a flood story in their respective lore. We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth, most especially one that wiped out all the creatures on Earth other than those on the Ark, just didn't happen.

But when you consider that the ancient people of the Bible and other inhabitants of Earth at that time had extremely limited knowledge of the shape or geology or composition of our planet or even what existed beyond a few day's walking distance or donkey or camel ride. They would see things much differently than we would now. To them waters that stretched as far as the eye could see would appear to cover the whole world.

So was the story of Noah historical? Allegory? Myth? I have my own opinion about that and will not try to dissuade the faith of anybody who believes differently than I do about that. But it is probable or at least possible that it reflected the oral tradition of a great flood and how the people of God survived it so that their story could continue unbroken.

I look at it this way. Every historical event mentioned in Scripture, that can be verified by other means, has been 100 percent accurate. SO I have to conclude that the Genesis flood is exactly what the Bible says it was. A global flood. There have been many attempts to debunk it, but none have been successful. In fact, there is a sediment layer that encompasses the entire Earth. Where did that come from?

All sedimentary rock layers encompassing the Earth have been forming over eons and as all the Earth is the same age, whatever that is, it would following that sedementary layers can be found everywhere though they will be of differing composition from area to area. That is the scientific explanation.

I will not attempt to shake your faith as I believe it is sincere and i believe God honors so great a faith. I just don't see it the same way which does not mean you are wrong; just that we understand it differently. And I don't think God cares much one way or the other in the grand scheme of things as it is our relationship with Him and each other that is the most important thing.

 

[Czernobog]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

The time element is unknown in most. But it is true that pretty much all the ancient cultures in the near east had a flood story in their respective lore. We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth, most especially one that wiped out all the creatures on Earth other than those on the Ark, just didn't happen.

But when you consider that the ancient people of the Bible and other inhabitants of Earth at that time had extremely limited knowledge of the shape or geology or composition of our planet or even what existed beyond a few day's walking distance or donkey or camel ride. They would see things much differently than we would now. To them waters that stretched as far as the eye could see would appear to cover the whole world.

So was the story of Noah historical? Allegory? Myth? I have my own opinion about that and will not try to dissuade the faith of anybody who believes differently than I do about that. But it is probable or at least possible that it reflected the oral tradition of a great flood and how the people of God survived it so that their story could continue unbroken.

I look at it this way. Every historical event mentioned in Scripture, that can be verified by other means, has been 100 percent accurate. SO I have to conclude that the Genesis flood is exactly what the Bible says it was. A global flood. There have been many attempts to debunk it, but none have been successful. In fact, there is a sediment layer that encompasses the entire Earth. Where did that come from?

Except that's demonstrably not true. Places have been found that are named in the Bible, but not a single event has been confirmed. In fact, some things talked of in the Bible are conspicuously missing from independent sources. The 500 year captivity of the Jews in Egypt, for instance. The Egyptians were meticulous in their records, including their slaves, yet there is not a single mention in any Egyptian record of the Jews ever being their "guests". In fact, the first mention of Jews in Egypt was some three hundred years later, on the Merneptah Stele.

And that is just one example of a story in the Bible that has never been confirmed from independent sources.

 

[RWNJ]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

The time element is unknown in most. But it is true that pretty much all the ancient cultures in the near east had a flood story in their respective lore. We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth, most especially one that wiped out all the creatures on Earth other than those on the Ark, just didn't happen.

But when you consider that the ancient people of the Bible and other inhabitants of Earth at that time had extremely limited knowledge of the shape or geology or composition of our planet or even what existed beyond a few day's walking distance or donkey or camel ride. They would see things much differently than we would now. To them waters that stretched as far as the eye could see would appear to cover the whole world.

So was the story of Noah historical? Allegory? Myth? I have my own opinion about that and will not try to dissuade the faith of anybody who believes differently than I do about that. But it is probable or at least possible that it reflected the oral tradition of a great flood and how the people of God survived it so that their story could continue unbroken.

I look at it this way. Every historical event mentioned in Scripture, that can be verified by other means, has been 100 percent accurate. SO I have to conclude that the Genesis flood is exactly what the Bible says it was. A global flood. There have been many attempts to debunk it, but none have been successful. In fact, there is a sediment layer that encompasses the entire Earth. Where did that come from?

All sedimentary rock layers encompassing the Earth have been forming over eons and as all the Earth is the same age, whatever that is, it would following that sedementary layers can be found everywhere though they will be of differing composition from area to area. That is the scientific explanation.

I will not attempt to shake your faith as I believe it is sincere and i believe God honors so great a faith. I just don't see it the same way which does not mean you are wrong; just that we understand it differently. And I don't think God cares much one way or the other in the grand scheme of things as it is our relationship with Him and each other that is the most important thing.

The sedimentary layer I mentioned spans the globe. It was laid down at the same time, all over the Earth. There is only one explanation for this. It happened all at once, and it was global. The only thing that could do that is a flood. A GLOBAL flood.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

 

[ding]

There seems to be a lot of confusion, not to mention some wilful ignorance about the nature of God.

Many Christians believe in the Trinity and that Jesus was God incarnate.

Some even point to the Trinity and state that Christians worship three Gods.

Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, look at a chicken egg. It has three separate parts. The yolk, the egg white, and the shell. So, which one of those parts is NOT the egg. They all are.

It's the same with God. One God, three persons, all sharing the essence of God. All equal. One God. But three in nature.

Get it now?

Well...just to play devil's advocate here (taking my atheist hat off for a moment), Jews would have a problem with this concept of yours. There is precisely zero references in the Tanakh about a triune nature of God. There is not even anything suggesting that the Mossaich is to be divine in nature. He was conceptualised as entirely human. It's one of the problems they have with Christians conflating Jesus with their Mossiach. If Christians wanted to go this route, they might have done better to follow the Islamic example, just bypassed the "Old Testament" all together, create their own holy book, and separated themselves from Judaism as much as possible.

Just an observation...

Except that they believed that the mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days and the dead would be resurrected.

Jewish prophecy and Christian prophecy blend quite nicely if you believe that they are fulfilled by the same man at different points in time.

Which, again, does not comport with either Jewish Tanakh, nor Jewish religious tradition. Nothing in Jewish teaching allows for the Mossiach to get a second bite at the apple. A man either fulfils all of Messianic prophesy, while he lives, or he is not the Mossiach. Once again, this whole "He's coming back" thing is another reason why Christians should have simply separated themselves from Judaism right from the start, like the Muslims did. By tying themselves to the Jews with the inclusion of the "Old Testament", they forced themselves to create an explanation for why Jesus didn't fulfil all of the messianic prophesies. Unfortunately, their "fix" flies directly in the face of the Tannakh, and creates a further rift between Judaism, and Christianity. And you still haven't reconciled the fact that Jewish teachings, and writings - and thus, the entire first half of your holy book - directly contradict the Christian concept of a triune God.

Who said anything about a second bite? He wasn't fulfilling their prophecy at that time as it was not the end of times.

 

[ding]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

Emphasis on major. Yes. Same time? Yes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

Emphasis on major. Yes. Same time? Yes.

What qualifies as "major"? Then we can check the truth of your claim.

 

[ding]

Every major culture has an account of a great flood.

Every culture? You've checked? EVERY one?

All point to the same point in time?

Emphasis on major. Yes. Same time? Yes.

What qualifies as "major"? Then we can check the truth of your claim.

The ones that could write it down in their written language 1500 years before Moses did.

 

[Foxfyre]

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

If you are going to quote me, please quote what I post in context. You didn't even quote the whole sentence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

If you are going to quote me, please quote what I post in context. You didn't even quote the whole sentence.

My apologies, your meaning was that the above claim is false.

 

[Foxfyre]

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

If you are going to quote me, please quote what I post in context. You didn't even quote the whole sentence.

My apologies, your meaning was that the above claim is false.

Apology accepted. Context is everything. For clarification, my opinion in context is that we logically know that a flood that wiped out all humankind and all creatures on Earth other than those aboard the Ark most likely just didn't happen. But it could have appeared so to those on the Ark though I personally take that Biblical story as a metaphorical allegory within the larger O.T. continuing motif of creation, sin, judgment, redemption. And I have no problem with those who take the story literally as I still feel that God isn't all that impressed with our theology no matter what it is, but does put a great deal of importance on our relationship with Him and each other.

So I counsel any who have problem with my theological position on the Bible to go with their gut and the belief that gives them the best comfort and encouragement.

 

[RWNJ]

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

If you are going to quote me, please quote what I post in context. You didn't even quote the whole sentence.

My apologies, your meaning was that the above claim is false.

Apology accepted. Context is everything. For clarification, my opinion in context is that we logically know that a flood that wiped out all humankind and all creatures on Earth other than those aboard the Ark most likely just didn't happen. But it could have appeared so to those on the Ark though I personally take that Biblical story as a metaphorical allegory within the larger O.T. continuing motif of creation, sin, judgment, redemption. And I have no problem with those who take the story literally as I still feel that God isn't all that impressed with our theology no matter what it is, but does put a great deal of importance on our relationship with Him and each other.

So I counsel any who have problem with my theological position on the Bible to go with their gut and the belief that gives them the best comfort and encouragement.

The only thing that really matters is that one knows Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. It is OK to have doubts about something like the flood. Well, not OK, but at least understandable. Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That includes Genesis. But as long as someone acknowledges that they are a sinner, asks God to forgive them, and asks Jesus to be Lord of their life, the rest doesn't really matter. Does it?

 

[Foxfyre]

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

We logically know now that a flood that covered the whole Earth

No we don't. That is completely false.

If you are going to quote me, please quote what I post in context. You didn't even quote the whole sentence.

My apologies, your meaning was that the above claim is false.

Apology accepted. Context is everything. For clarification, my opinion in context is that we logically know that a flood that wiped out all humankind and all creatures on Earth other than those aboard the Ark most likely just didn't happen. But it could have appeared so to those on the Ark though I personally take that Biblical story as a metaphorical allegory within the larger O.T. continuing motif of creation, sin, judgment, redemption. And I have no problem with those who take the story literally as I still feel that God isn't all that impressed with our theology no matter what it is, but does put a great deal of importance on our relationship with Him and each other.

So I counsel any who have problem with my theological position on the Bible to go with their gut and the belief that gives them the best comfort and encouragement.

The only thing that really matters is that one knows Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. It is OK to have doubts about something like the flood. Well, not OK, but at least understandable. Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That includes Genesis. But as long as someone acknowledges that they are a sinner, asks God to forgive them, and asks Jesus to be Lord of their life, the rest doesn't really matter. Does it?

I am Christian and I believe the Bible to be the fallible word of God as seen through those who wrote and copied the manuscripts. Thus I have to allow for the Bible to include the history, law, parable, metaphor, symbolism, allegory, poetry, wisdom sayings, prophecy, human perception et al that I believe it does. I don't think they nor we are expected to take everything literally.

For example there is no way to be scientifically educated and believe that God created the heaven and Earth, light, day and night, on the first day, water and sky the second day, vegetation on the third day, and then the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

Now we can strain to make that literally fit somewhere by adding a lot of human invention that is found nowhere in that narrative in order to make that work. But of course the man of faith can say if that's the way God wanted to do it, that's the way God did it. I believe God honors that.

Or we can believe that Genesis 1 was written by men of deep faith who were making a theological statement that everything that exists in the universe God did along with a theological justification for keeping the Sabbath Day holy. And I believe God honors that too.

And I love fellow Christians regardless of how they see the Bible unless they use the Bible to do harm and/or hurt people. (Think Westboro Baptists.) I can't sit back and justify that.

(I love a lot of people who aren't Christian too, though I do believe we Christians are really blessed and that that blessing is available to anybody who wants it.)

 

[RWNJ]

No we don't. That is completely false.

No we don't. That is completely false.

If you are going to quote me, please quote what I post in context. You didn't even quote the whole sentence.

My apologies, your meaning was that the above claim is false.

Apology accepted. Context is everything. For clarification, my opinion in context is that we logically know that a flood that wiped out all humankind and all creatures on Earth other than those aboard the Ark most likely just didn't happen. But it could have appeared so to those on the Ark though I personally take that Biblical story as a metaphorical allegory within the larger O.T. continuing motif of creation, sin, judgment, redemption. And I have no problem with those who take the story literally as I still feel that God isn't all that impressed with our theology no matter what it is, but does put a great deal of importance on our relationship with Him and each other.

So I counsel any who have problem with my theological position on the Bible to go with their gut and the belief that gives them the best comfort and encouragement.

The only thing that really matters is that one knows Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. It is OK to have doubts about something like the flood. Well, not OK, but at least understandable. Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That includes Genesis. But as long as someone acknowledges that they are a sinner, asks God to forgive them, and asks Jesus to be Lord of their life, the rest doesn't really matter. Does it?

I am Christian and I believe the Bible to be the fallible word of God as seen through those who wrote and copied the manuscripts. Thus I have to allow for the Bible to include the history, law, parable, metaphor, symbolism, allegory, poetry, wisdom sayings, prophecy et al that it does and that neither they nor we are expected to take everything literally.

For example there is no way to be scientifically educated and believe that God created the heaven and Earth, light, day and night, on the first day, water and sky the second day, vegetation on the third day, and then the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

Now we can strain to make that literally fit somewhere by adding a lot of human invention that is found nowhere in that narrative in order to make that work. But of course the man of faith can say if that's the way God wanted to do it, that's the way God did it. I believe God honors that.

Or we can believe that Genesis 1 was written by men of deep faith who were making a theological statement that everything that exists in the universe God did along with a theological justification for keeping the Sabbath Day holy. And I believe God honors that too.

And I love fellow Christians regardless of how they see the Bible unless they use the Bible to do harm and/or hurt people. (Think Westboro Baptists.) I can't sit back and justify that.

So, You're calling Jesus a liar?
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"