We know quite well that there was no global flood within the lifespan of the human species. There are countless lines of evidence, from geology (the geologic record would show clear signs of flooding and doesn’t) to genetics (we can detect population bottlenecks going back far beyond the alleged date of the flood; reducing a breeding population to two would result in significantly less genetic diversity) to geography (assuming the flood happened as described in the bible, we would expect species to more or less exist radiating out from Israel, which we do not see) to paleontology (in the case of a global flood, we’d expect a small geologic layer with countless remains of more or less modern critters, which we do not see) to anthropology (there are human civilizations which seemed to exist entirely unperturbed by this global flood)…
This isn’t even getting into issues where we’d need God’s intervention just to make things work at the current time. The ark, as described, could not possibly have been seaworthy - it would have collapsed under its own weight, barring a miracle. There’s nowhere the water could have come from or gone to, barring a miracle. There are too many species of animal, particularly predatory animals, to house or feed in an ark, barring a miracle. But the things I bring up are all things we would expect to see even if god created a miraculous global flood. So we know for a fact that unless God magically hid all the evidence of a global flood, it really couldn’t have happened. The list of truly extravagant things you have to believe to hold up the global flood story as literal is… well, long.
I’m always struck, when reading any of the dozens of these threads that we’ve had, by the absolute chasm in thought processes between believers and non-believers. It’s like we’re different species.
Like an argument in this thread that is apparently compelling to at least some people is “Catholicism is the one true religion because it’s old.” Then someone comes along and says “hmm, I don’t think it being old really implies that it’s true, but lets say it does. What about these other things that are even older. Surely it implies they’re true as well?” “No, no, no, those are old in a different way!”
EscAlaMike, OK to be fair, the reason why posts like your last one are receiving responses like this is that it is not uncommon for non-believers to have actually more familiarity with the bible then even believers.
As an example in my case I felt guilty about not being a believer and my church pastor tasked me with reading the bible in a response. His hope was that I would find the same warming of the heart that he had when reading it. But for me I couldn’t look past the portions that, for me, demonstrated that it was the story of a petty and cruel god.
I am not saying that no faithful individuals do so but that most members rarely stray from the lessons and lectures or their favorite passages.
I have no idea what your intentions are, but I would guess that you think that we just haven’t examined these ideas. That presumption typically comes across as very patronising.
That is merely because in the case of Christianity it is mostly a fools errand.
I would argue that even if it is true that is the fault of the Christian god, according to the gospel he is the one is to blame for make believing in him so hard.
As a non-theist I personally don’t give a rats ass what a person believes in as long as they don’t force those beliefs on others. The only reason I even respond to these threads is because that is not true.
We live in a country that where religious people distrust atheists as much as rapists, and unfortunately it appears that they will jump to stand up for rapists but not atheists.
My intentions are simply to engage in dialogue on a topic that interests me (religion). I do not make any presumptions about you or any other poster. How could I? I don’t know a thing about you or your views except for what you post. I don’t think my posts have been patronizing at all, but of course I could be biased. Have they? It certainly wasn’t intended. I don’t claim to be any more knowledgeable about this topic than anyone else. I’ve just been sharing my perspective on the matter, hopefully humbly and respectfully. I like to think my posts have contributed to interesting discussion. It has been enjoyable for me at least. Isn’t that the whole purpose of a message board?
I know that in our Protestant society (for Americans anyway), there is a massive over-emphasis on the Bible in debates regarding Christianity, and there is even a creepy cult-like worshipping of the book among believers. I don’t ascribe to that. I recognize that Christianity pre-dates the canonization of Scripture by several centuries, and Christianity is much more than a book. I think your pastor’s approach was the wrong one, but being a Protestant minister, what else did he have?
You most certainly do when you claim that the Bible cannot be wrong. Do you also believe that the supplemental information that your sect relies on cannot be wrong?
And these earlier ideas of Christianity are based off what? An elected demi-god or?
As I grew up in the Episcopal Church the canon was based primarily off of the same oecumenical councils you referenced. I get that you do believe in Divine decree but I have seen no evidence of some divine source of faith that was reliably handed down to only the Catholics.
In fact almost all of the hard archaeological evidence demonstrates that the practices were not standardized and would not result in a practice that is similar to the Catholic churches.
Outside of the Liturgical Books, which do not differ significantly from the Episcopal Church’s, can you link to these primary sources of faith on www.newadvent.org or other source?
Czarcasm, please read the entirety of Post 369. To place the entirety of the Bible into the category or “wrong” or “right” is nonsensical.
It’s like asking if pants are right or wrong. Pants could be considered “right” if they fit and you wear them correctly, but they could be considered “wrong” if you try to wear them like a shirt.
The Bible serves a purpose within the life of the Church, and when used for that purpose, it is “right”. If you attempt to use the Bible like you would a science textbook, then it’s “wrong”.
So there is no truth to the Bible because if it is wrong we just were reading it is wrong?
The way I read that is that you use it’s claimed divinity as justifying your power but then just ignore parts or produce tortured re-readings of it to justify random whims and to serve the individuals or churches vanity.
I think the more likely scenario is that it is re-interpreted to avoid a crisis of faith and to preserve belief despite contrary evidence.
The divine source of faith is Jesus Christ himself. He taught his Apostles and gave them the commission to go into the world teaching others what they were taught. At the Last Supper, Jesus said the first mass and told the Apostles to do the same. The Apostles and their successors are the Catholic Church, and the Church is believed to have divine protection and perpetuity because of Jesus’ promise to Peter that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it.
I guess it depends what you mean by “standardized”. There are certain parts of the liturgy which would be required for the liturgy to be valid, while there are parts that are optional. Naturally there would be some variance in the order of worship from city to city. Even within the Catholic Church today, there are something like 23 basically autonomous churches, all in Communion with the Pope, each with their own liturgical variants. However, the Didache is considered to be strong evidence showing the relative uniformity of the liturgy since the first centuries, as well as the writings of Justin Martyr which described the mass in his day.
I don’t have full internet access on the computer I am currently using, but I am familiar with New Advent.
Okay, you can read all of these sinister intentions into Biblical interpretation if you want to, but I just don’t see why re-interpreting it is a bad thing if new information comes to light. Naturally, human knowledge and understanding should increase through time.
Years ago I was the high EBay bidder on a beautiful leather-bound bible when the auction was shut down, leaving me very unhappy. The book was autographed, “Keep on truckin’, your pal, Jesus”. EBay felt the provenance of the signature was questionable. I disagreed.
Don’t resort to strawman arguments now please. Confirmation bias is rarely if ever driven by sinister intentions.
I agree human knowledge and understanding should increase through time, I just don’t get how you justify understanding what Jesus even taught or said if you keep dismissing the bible as a source and claim that it’s meaning changes at will.
LOL. Here we go again. I did not say that the Bible is not a reliable source.
Before we continue, let me just remind everyone that “the Bible” is not a uniform book. It is a compilation of 73 books that were written by dozens of different authors in multiple languages over the course of many centuries.
Please be more specific when you ask whether “the Bible” is a reliable source, and what it may be a source of.
I do believe that the New Testament is a reliable source for finding out what Jesus and his Apostles taught. But it is not the primary source. The primary source is the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
