How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (3 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

Tangent thought.

As you probably know, Bryce Young has not had the career most expected. At least so far. From a personal angle, seems like a caring and thoughtful guy. This was good.

And a good example of how one can carry their faith without necessarily shouting from the rooftops about it.

x.com

x.com

 

[Paddington]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

so what's your take on Christian Nationalism movement?

seems like they have an ongoing attack on pretty much everything/everyone that isn't them

If you’ve kept up with the thread you’d see his frequent (despite multiple warnings) extremely disparaging posts about the left and liberals, which probably leads to the answer to your question.

And probably a topic that's best not discussing if we want to keep this thread going.

Agreed.

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

I have looked into the newer finds of scrolls with stories like the one I referred to. I am confident that the translations are legit as is the authenticity of the time frame I described.

Just like the Horus scam that turned out to be false, claiming that Pre Biblical Horus had all of the same traits as Jesus.. Just like the Gospel of Mary, Judas, Thomas that turned out not to be written until hundreds of years after these people died and were not actually written by Mary, Judas or Thomas. Just like the false claim that there is no extra Biblical evidence for Jesus existence. Just like the Da Vinci Code. All attempts to try to disprove Scripture and all proven to be false. Many more also. Whenever I research such claims, they turn out to be false. Just because someone says those scrolls are pre Kingdom of Judah, doesn't mean that they are. Also, even if they are legit, that doesn't make the scroll accurate. Israel had turned to false gods and Religions many times in their history, which is why God judged them and scattered them all over the world, more than once. The most recent time was in 70 AD after they rejected their Messiah in 33 AD, God scattered them all over the world, but then re-established the Nation of Israel in 1948. That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

By the way, Hal Lindsey died a few weeks ago. Scared this guy way back when as the religious freak up the street dragged my mom and us kids to his horror movie.

 

[Mister CIA]

That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

By the way, Hal Lindsey died a few weeks ago. Scared this guy way back when as the religious freak up the street dragged my mom and us kids to his horror movie.

I remember the finding the paperbacks lying around the house as an adolescent (I think Late Great Planet Earth was his moneymaker), and it probably planted the first real seeds on cynicism in me. I can remember the cognitive dissonance of "this man is obviously telling the truth" paired with "This is some horse stuff." Of course now I just see him as a person sold fear and paperbacks.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

All attempts to try to disprove Scripture and all proven to be false

So what would qualify? Would a single cherry picked declarative statement that was not part of a parable that was demonstratably false be enough? Would cherry picked statements about nature? Guys like myself get called out by "both sides". Called out for believing on one side. Called out for "picking and choosing" passages on the other. But I contend that there are plenty of example of "literay devices", "artistic license" where it is no big deal that a fact be not a fact to make a larger point. Is that allowed? If the fact supporting the larger point false, does that disprove scripture? If we largely suspect with overwhelming evidence that something in the bible didn't quite happen as described does that disprove anything?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guess this is a matter of perspective. What are you looking for in the historical record and the arcelogical record to support the historical accounts in the bible? What do you expect from the bible as far as history? While there are parts of the bible that are laying out a history of the people, in other cases the history is just setting the background, defining the time and place of the larger story. Is rather accurately reflecting the period good enough? Or does the details matter? Can there have been "Exodus out of Egypt" if they just moved out of the cities and into the hills? Or does there need to be millions wandering the desert? Can a nomadic people living in tents, rather than constructing buildings be a kingdom? Answering yes doesn't "prove" anything, but it does allow things currently discredited. When does exaggeration go from being "story telling" to a "lie"? When does "filling in missing blanks" turn "based on a true story" to mere fiction?

For me I see a lot of cases where those that went out to "prove" the historicity of the bible made grand announcements only to be burned later. I've also seen the long dismissed suddenly become possible (Kingdom of David). So I can get how one can make the claim that the bible simply doesn't fit what we know at the same time someone can claim that the bible keeps proving to be surprisingly correct.

But ultimately I'm not terribly worried if all of the history is correct or barely correct with lots of exaggerations and filling in the blank, or completely fabricated as, with some boring exceptions the history is a literary device to share the more important message.

 

[dgreen]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guess this is a matter of perspective. What are you looking for in the historical record and the arcelogical record to support the historical accounts in the bible? What do you expect from the bible as far as history? While there are parts of the bible that are laying out a history of the people, in other cases the history is just setting the background, defining the time and place of the larger story. Is rather accurately reflecting the period good enough? Or does the details matter? Can there have been "Exodus out of Egypt" if they just moved out of the cities and into the hills? Or does there need to be millions wandering the desert? Can a nomadic people living in tents, rather than constructing buildings be a kingdom? Answering yes doesn't "prove" anything, but it does allow things currently discredited. When does exaggeration go from being "story telling" to a "lie"? When does "filling in missing blanks" turn "based on a true story" to mere fiction?

For me I see a lot of cases where those that went out to "prove" the historicity of the bible made grand announcements only to be burned later. I've also seen the long dismissed suddenly become possible (Kingdom of David). So I can get how one can make the claim that the bible simply doesn't fit what we know at the same time someone can claim that the bible keeps proving to be surprisingly correct.

But ultimately I'm not terribly worried if all of the history is correct or barely correct with lots of exaggerations and filling in the blank, or completely fabricated as, with some boring exceptions the history is a literary device to share the more important message.

Not surprisingly, I agree. It can be a difficult transition, though, to think this way. I love the image that we are "literary tourists" of the Bible. Just as we realize that things can be different when we travel from the United States to another country, we need to realize that things can be different when we read the Bible. And this is why it is important to remember "The Bible was not written to us." We, 21st Century Americans, are not the assumed audience in the minds of any of the authors. They did things their way with no concern with whether or not we'd agree with their methods. Here are some quotes I've come across that I try to keep in mind when reading the Bible:

"We have forgotten that we read the Bible as foreigners, as visitors who have traveled not only to a new geography, but to a new century. We are literary tourists who are deeply in need of a guide."

"For us as Westerners the cultural distance 'over' to the Middle East is greater than the distance 'back' to the first century. The cultural gulf between the West and East is deeper and wider than the gulf between the first century (in the Middle East) and the contemporary conservative Middle Eastern village."

"It is the 'Western' culture that is the aberrant one in the world. And it is precisely in the Western world...that Scriptures have seemingly the least acceptance."

"Indeed, for much of the world, the culture of the Bible makes more sense than it does to us."

I was really challenged a few years ago when it was suggested that being a Christian doesn't automatically give me special powers to understand what Jesus was doing. That a Muslim in the Middle East is going to understand the Bible better than me because of their cultural connections. I think this is one reason why I think the Jordanians are closest in their interpretation of the Prodigal Son. They are the closest in mindset to the culture in which the parable was told.

I know I'm but I think it's so important and if two people start with drastically different presuppositions here, then conversations are tough to have.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I know I'm but I think it's so important and if two people start with drastically different presuppositions here, then conversations are tough to have.

Yeah. I don't think that there is evidence that Asherah was worshipped in scrolls is going to be convincing. Although being stuck on the KJV might result in missing the references in the Old Testament.

On the flip side, I don't see an attack on those that find similarities between Jesus and other portrayals of ancient characters, and attack on Gnostic writings (though I think he whiffs on Thomas), or mentions of the DaVinci code, and whatever I'm forgetting as anything at all related to the historicity of the bible.

Ultimately that is why I asked the what questions. What qualifies as being accurate, what is not. What proves a negative ? etc. I think for that discussion to happen in a more productive form than talking past each other we need that context. But then again, I'm not always certain that anyone really wants that discussion.

 

[Paddington]

That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

By the way, Hal Lindsey died a few weeks ago. Scared this guy way back when as the religious freak up the street dragged my mom and us kids to his horror movie.

Not sure what Hal Lyndsey has to do with anything.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

By the way, Hal Lindsey died a few weeks ago. Scared this guy way back when as the religious freak up the street dragged my mom and us kids to his horror movie.

Not sure what Hal Lyndsey has to do with anything.

Signs of the 2nd coming. And how it ties back to the thread's first post. But mostly an old memory of being scared in 1978.

From wikipedia

People magazine said, "Lindsey splices Bible prophecies of doom with contemporary signs. For instance, he says the Bible pinpoints Israel's rebirth as a nation as the catalyst to Judgment Day, which will probably occur by 1988. The intervening years will see the emergence of a 10-nation confederacy (prophet Daniel's dreadful 10-horned beast) or, as Lindsey sees it, the European Common Market. Eventually Russia (biblical Magog) will attack Israel and precipitate a global nuclear war. Only Jesus' followers will be spared. Hence, Lindsey advises, "the only thing you need to understand is that God offers you in Jesus Christ a full pardon."[6]

 

[Paddington]

That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

By the way, Hal Lindsey died a few weeks ago. Scared this guy way back when as the religious freak up the street dragged my mom and us kids to his horror movie.

Not sure what Hal Lyndsey has to do with anything.

Signs of the 2nd coming. And how it ties back to the thread's first post. But mostly an old memory of being scared in 1978.

From wikipedia

People magazine said, "Lindsey splices Bible prophecies of doom with contemporary signs. For instance, he says the Bible pinpoints Israel's rebirth as a nation as the catalyst to Judgment Day, which will probably occur by 1988. The intervening years will see the emergence of a 10-nation confederacy (prophet Daniel's dreadful 10-horned beast) or, as Lindsey sees it, the European Common Market. Eventually Russia (biblical Magog) will attack Israel and precipitate a global nuclear war. Only Jesus' followers will be spared. Hence, Lindsey advises, "the only thing you need to understand is that God offers you in Jesus Christ a full pardon."[6]

The Bible does predict Israel's scattering around the world, which happened in AD 70 after they rejected their Messiah in AD 33. God gave them 37 years to repent, but they didn't. Lindsey shouldn't be throwing out dates because I Bible says that no one knows the exact time. Yes, the 10 Nations are mentioned in the Bible and we now know it's referring to the European Union, AKA the Revised Roman Empire. The things that were in place at the time of Christ's Ascension are in place today, indicating that the Tribulation period could happen at any time. That is true. But what's also true is that God works on His own pace and we don't know how long that could be. Jesus did say that when you see these things BEGIN to come to pass, know that it is near, even at the door. Yes, during the Tribulation period, or shortly before (Not sure which) Russia will attack Israel and the Battle of Gog and Magog will occur. It's a world war led by Russia, China and the Islamic Nations. Interesting that the Bible names the same nations that still hate Israel today. The Global Nuclear War will happen in the Tribulation period, AFTER the Rapture of the Church. I won't be here. Yes, Lindsey is correct, God does offer everyone a Pardon for their sins. That's what this first post is all about. Everyone should read it and respond to it.

 

[Zow]

Oh my.

 

[ex-ghost]

All of that sounds like Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion - fantasy.

 

[Mister CIA]

That is a sign that the 2nd coming is coming soon, by the way.

But what's also true is that God works on His own pace and we don't know how long that could be.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Oh my.

Been there all along

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Bible does predict Israel's scattering around the world, which happened in AD 70 after they rejected their Messiah in AD 33. God gave them 37 years to repent, but they didn't. Lindsey shouldn't be throwing out dates because I Bible says that no one knows the exact time. Yes, the 10 Nations are mentioned in the Bible and we now know it's referring to the European Union, AKA the Revised Roman Empire. The things that were in place at the time of Christ's Ascension are in place today, indicating that the Tribulation period could happen at any time. That is true. But what's also true is that God works on His own pace and we don't know how long that could be. Jesus did say that when you see these things BEGIN to come to pass, know that it is near, even at the door. Yes, during the Tribulation period, or shortly before (Not sure which) Russia will attack Israel and the Battle of Gog and Magog will occur. It's a world war led by Russia, China and the Islamic Nations. Interesting that the Bible names the same nations that still hate Israel today. The Global Nuclear War will happen in the Tribulation period, AFTER the Rapture of the Church. I won't be here. Yes, Lindsey is correct, God does offer everyone a Pardon for their sins. That's what this first post is all about. Everyone should read it and respond to it.

But Lindsey was wrong. 1988 came and went. More importantly when you focus on an end that is right around a corner, you tend to leave things undone. I once read a critique of The Late Great Planet Earth from when it was all the rage where the author thought it was ironic that in focusing on the prophecy, we leave behind the prophets' actual message. The same message of the rest of scripture - Love thy neighbor. While scripture tells us to be prepared, beyond that we have no control on when there is an end time. I'm pretty certain that scripture hints that these things out of control should just be left to God. What we can control is taking care of each other. And as first John says, it is a lie to think you can love God and not love his children. And ultimately, we are saved by grace, not works, including the work of faith. So, caring at all about end time prophecy beyond a bit of intellectual curiosity is not right at all.

 

[Chaos34]

All of that sounds like Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion - fantasy.

J.R.R Tolkien said that the story is "fundamentally religious and Catholic work," meaning it can be interpreted through a lens of Christian theology, even though it doesn't explicitly mention the Bible.

 

[zoonation]

That reminds me, if we wanted to revive the idea @BobbyLayne talked about with a FBG Book Club thing, "Reason For God" might be a good one. It's much deeper than something "The Case For Christ" but not so deep it's difficult.

The Case for Christ by Lee Stoebel? The arguments in that book are, respectfully, nonsense. The entire thing is just begging the question over and over again. Stoebel has no understanding of academic biblical scholarship or the evolution of first century Christianity.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That reminds me, if we wanted to revive the idea @BobbyLayne talked about with a FBG Book Club thing, "Reason For God" might be a good one. It's much deeper than something "The Case For Christ" but not so deep it's difficult.

The Case for Christ by Lee Stoebel? The arguments in that book are, respectfully, nonsense. The entire thing is just begging the question over and over again. Stoebel has no understanding of academic biblical scholarship or the evolution of first century Christianity.

Thanks. I appreciate the "respectfully" there but I've found his book useful. Especially for people looking for an introduction as he writes about his journey exploring the idea of Christianity through the lens of his job as a journalist. He's clear about who he is and what the book is. He's clear that it's not an academic biblical scholarship book. There are many other books that would be much better there if that's what folks are looking for.

 

[Zow]

Oh my.

Been there all along

Oh, I know.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

 

[Zow]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

Yeah in one of the cities I frequently travel to for work there's still a billboard up from, I think, that 855-for-truth group telling warning people about the rapture happening in 2012. I get a chuckle out of it whenever I drive by it.

 

[Chaos34]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

I find hour long vids on youtube that are above my brain grade to cure the insomnia. It works. For awhile I was tuned into a rabbinical scholar teaching wannabe rabbis. He did this thing with the Jewish alphabet as prophecy. The first third of the symbols describe ancient israelite history to 2000 bc. The middle third do the same to the 1st century. The final third describes history to date. It's 6000 years of prophecy that ends... now. Dispensationalist Christians believe the rabbis missed the first coming but get the 2nd one right. Any day now. Repent for the time is nigh.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I find hour long vids on youtube that are above my brain grade to cure the insomnia. It works.

Yep. Bart Ehrman has a YT series that puts me out within 10 minutes. Each hour long episode requires 5-6 nights of listening to ensure I'm conscious all the way through.

 

[Chaos34]

Bart Ehrman

I wasn't familiar with his game. Sounds like someone perfect for putting me to sleep.

Ehrman was raised in the Episcopal Church; as a teenager, he became a born-again evangelical.[2][5][6] In Misquoting Jesus, he recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[2][5] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to study ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and textual criticism. During such studies at Princeton, however, he became convinced that there were contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[2]

I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years [...] I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text [...] If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn't he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[2]
In the preface to his 2020 book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, Ehrman said that he had been scared of going to Hell since he was a child and, when he began to encounter some doubts about his Christian beliefs at college, he became panicked that he might die before he had found the right beliefs, and be sent to Hell.[7]

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering

 

[dkp993]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In the grand scheme of forever 2k is soon.

The best predictions are always vague enough to always be true.

 

[Paddington]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

 

[Zow]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

 

[dgreen]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

What do you find laughable about the story? Or do you just mean the argument that it’s an accurate recording of historical events is laughable?

 

[Zow]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

What do you find laughable about the story? Or do you just mean the argument that it’s an accurate recording of historical events is laughable?

The latter. Or, more specifically, the notion that a man in that time period literally did as the story suggests.

As a parable to demonstrate that the Old Testament God can get so mad at humans that H/he will wipe all of us out? That seems consistent with the general Christian belief of the god portrayed in the Old Testament and isn’t laughable.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

sounds just like Harold Camping

 

[dkp993]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

For sure. All of this also speaks nothing to the genetic component issues after the flood or the fact that the ark wouldn’t even be able to carry 2 of every insect species much less all of the animal kingdom. Food? Waste? Water? On and on and on. Fun story, sure. Real? Well laughable is being kind.

 

[dgreen]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

What do you find laughable about the story? Or do you just mean the argument that it’s an accurate recording of historical events is laughable?

The latter. Or, more specifically, the notion that a man in that time period literally did as the story suggests.

As a parable to demonstrate that the Old Testament God can get so mad at humans that H/he will wipe all of us out? That seems consistent with the general Christian belief of the god portrayed in the Old Testament and isn’t laughable.

It's interesting that you are focusing on "the general Christian belief". That was your same line of questioning and argumentation related to hell for those who don't believe. I can understand why someone would be interested in what the general Christian belief might be on something related to God and the Bible. Christians really should have a relatively accurate position. But, what I'm wondering is if you think the general Christian belief accurately represents the story. Do you think the meaning of the flood story is that "God can get so mad at humans that H/he will wipe all of us out"? Is that the correct interpretation of what the author was trying to convey?

Here's why I ask. I feel like you are arguing against the general Christian belief as a way to argue against God or the Bible. However, that assumes the general Christian belief is correct about God and the Bible. But, I guess it's also possible you are just arguing against the belief. For example, some of us (like @IvanKaramazov and @Bottomfeeder Sports) have also, at times, been arguing against the general Christian belief, but more in a way to say that we think that general belief is wrong. I think I said before in this thread that, many times, I think an argument against the general Christian belief is an argument against a false narrative and shouldn't necessarily be used as an argument against God or the Bible. I believe that Western Christianity has got a lot of things wrong over the centuries and we are in the process of digging ourselves out of those holes the last 50-100 years.

 

[Zow]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

What do you find laughable about the story? Or do you just mean the argument that it’s an accurate recording of historical events is laughable?

The latter. Or, more specifically, the notion that a man in that time period literally did as the story suggests.

As a parable to demonstrate that the Old Testament God can get so mad at humans that H/he will wipe all of us out? That seems consistent with the general Christian belief of the god portrayed in the Old Testament and isn’t laughable.

It's interesting that you are focusing on "the general Christian belief". That was your same line of questioning and argumentation related to hell for those who don't believe. I can understand why someone would be interested in what the general Christian belief might be on something related to God and the Bible. Christians really should have a relatively accurate position. But, what I'm wondering is if you think the general Christian belief accurately represents the story. Do you think the meaning of the flood story is that "God can get so mad at humans that H/he will wipe all of us out"? Is that the correct interpretation of what the author was trying to convey?

Here's why I ask. I feel like you are arguing against the general Christian belief as a way to argue against God or the Bible. However, that assumes the general Christian belief is correct about God and the Bible. But, I guess it's also possible you are just arguing against the belief. For example, some of us (like @IvanKaramazov and @Bottomfeeder Sports) have also, at times, been arguing against the general Christian belief, but more in a way to say that we think that general belief is wrong. I think I said before in this thread that, many times, I think an argument against the general Christian belief is an argument against a false narrative and shouldn't necessarily be used as an argument against God or the Bible. I believe that Western Christianity has got a lot of things wrong over the centuries and we are in the process of digging ourselves out of those holes the last 50-100 years.

Sure, I think it's very possible that the "general Christian belief" about the Noah story - that's it's probably a parable but the lesson to be gleaned from it is that if we collectively sin so much G/god will smite us all save the 1-2 "good ones" and the animals - is wrong. Because the story, much like a plain reading of many of the OT books, makes G/god look like a jealous, vengeful *******. This naturally flies in the face of the notion that if we believe G/god truly does love us and wants us to be saved, H/he probably isn't wiping the majority of us out just because he got angry and there was some idol worship and Dionysian lifestyles being lived.

I'm comfortable saying this is the general Christian belief about the Noah story because I've heard Catholic priests, a WELS Lutheran pastor, and an LDS* bishop all speak to the story and the message seemed to be the same.

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

 

[Mister CIA]

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umumbrella.

Catholics too

 

[Zow]

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

Catholics too

Right. I have Catholics in the same bucket as Christians.

Or are you saying Christians exclude Catholics?

 

[Mister CIA]

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

Catholics too

Right. I have Catholics in the same bucket as Christians.

Or are you saying Christians exclude Catholics?

Definitely stating that some Christians don't regard Catholics as true Christians. I distinctly remember my cousin telling me as much. We were both 9 years old.

I think it's loosely based on the notion that Catholics worship Mary and considered it idolotry.

 

[Zow]

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

Catholics too

Right. I have Catholics in the same bucket as Christians.

Or are you saying Christians exclude Catholics?

Definitely stating that some Christians don't regard Catholics as true Christians. I distinctly remember my cousin telling me as much. We were both 9 years old.

I think it's loosely based on the notion that Catholics worship Mary and considered it idolotry.

I didn't know this was as prevalent because, you know, the Christian faith stems from the Catholic faith (though they did have 95 gripes about the Catholic faith and had some good points with a few of them).

 

[dgreen]

Sure, I think it's very possible that the "general Christian belief" about the Noah story - that's it's probably a parable but the lesson to be gleaned from it is that if we collectively sin so much G/god will smite us all save the 1-2 "good ones" and the animals - is wrong. Because the story, much like a plain reading of many of the OT books, makes G/god look like a jealous, vengeful *******. This naturally flies in the face of the notion that if we believe G/god truly does love us and wants us to be saved, H/he probably isn't wiping the majority of us out just because he got angry and there was some idol worship and Dionysian lifestyles being lived.

I'm comfortable saying this is the general Christian belief about the Noah story because I've heard Catholic priests, a WELS Lutheran pastor, and an LDS* bishop all speak to the story and the message seemed to be the same.

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

I think it can be hard to do a plain reading of many of the stories. A "plain reading" usually means a modern American reading. There's a lot we can miss when we don't understand their culture and their methods of story telling.

The story is written in what's known as a chiastic pattern, where details at the front end are then mirrored at the back end. One way these patterns are used is to lead the audience to a central point. This Noah chiasm looks something like this (hopefully it formats well):

• A - 7:1 - Command to enter ark
  • B - 7:4 - 7 days
    • C - 7:10 - 7 days
      • D- 7:16 - God shut the door of the ark
        • E- 7:17 - 40 days
          • F - 7:19-20 - Mountains covered with water
            • G - 7:14 - 150 days the water prevails
              • H - 8:1 - God remembered Noah
            • G' - 8:3 - 150 days the water abates
          • F' - 8:5 - Mountains become visible
        • E' - 8:6a - 40 days
      • D' - 8:6b - Noah opens the window of the ark
    • C' - 8:10 - 7 days
  • B' - 8:12 - 7 days
• A' - 8:15-16 - Command to leave the ark

So, while I agree there is an aspect of some kind of judgment/destruction in the story (the general Christian belief), I think the larger point is something else. A plain reading that doesn't account for the literary structure that would have been plain to the original audience is going to miss this. It appears that God remembering Noah and everything that was on the ark is an important point. The author makes that clear in how he wrote the story. "Remember" doesn't mean some recalling of a fact in his mind as if God said, "Hey, who is that down there in a boat? Oh, yeah, it's my boy Noah!" "Remember" is generally followed with an action. The way God "remembered" Noah was by doing something. God "remembered" and "God made a wind blow over the earth", which was the beginning of the action he took.

The image here is that everything is surrounded by water and a wind blows over it. The word for wind is the same as the word for spirit. So, we have a wind/spirit over water. This is, almost certainly, an echo of Genesis 1:2 when God's spirit hovered over the water. And what happened after God's spirit hovered over the waters in chapter 1? There was light, waters were separated, land was separated from water, there were birds, and animals and humans were on the earth with a command to be fruitful and multiply. What happens in chapter 8 after God remembered Noah and caused a wind to blow over the waters? The waters separate (8:2), land is separated from water (8:5), there are birds (8:6-12), man and animals leave the ark to be on earth and are told to be fruitful and multiply (8:17-18).

The center of the chiasm, which highlights God's saving act, is also the starting point of a re-creation. This is a story of de-creation and re-creation, or of chaos and order. I believe this would have been obvious to an ancient audience. Creation, to them, wasn't about the science and the material world. It was about order and things functioning with a proper purpose. (I've heard the analogy of a house vs a home. Sure, God did make the house - which is about the materials used to make the physical structure - but the real message is that he made a home - which is about how the house and those in it function.) It's important to understand that Genesis 1 isn't about the science. It's about a starting point of chaos (1:2a) and how this god brought order to things and gave things function and purpose. Chapters 3 and 4 tell stories of a decline and chapter 6 paints a picture of where that decline led, a return to complete chaos. This isn't about some idol worship and Dionysian lifestyles. Chapter 6 says every intention of man was only evil. The chapter uses words like evil, corrupt/ruined, and violence. And not just about humans, but about the earth which was now ruined. All of creation had descended back into chaos. The flood brings us back to 1:2 where the earth was without form and void and darkness was over the face of the abyss. And God was "grieved in his heart" about the state of creation in chapter 6 and we read about how he brought order back into the world.

Yes, the story does say that it was God who brought the waters. He was the one who brought things back to chaos to then bring things back into order. And I'm sure there are still plenty of "why" questions around that. Interestingly, in 8:21, God refers back to man's intentions being evil, but this time says he won't destroy everything again. There's a recognition that we our inclinations haven't changed, but post-flood God is going to take the route of covenant relationships (from Noah to Abram to Moses/Israel to David to Jesus).

I don't say all of this to try to provide nice clean answers to tough questions. I say it to point out how I truly believe "general Christian belief" can miss the mark and shouldn't always be held up as a proper interpretation of what the Bible is about and who God is. This is all a widely-known interpretation among Biblical scholars, yet mostly hidden from the average Christian. It's no wonder the Bible is generally seen as total bunk based on the way we usually read it and talk about it. However, the more I learn, the more I think it is absolutely brilliant. And, no, it certainly doesn't answer all my questions about God. It raises a lot of questions.

 

[dgreen]

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

Catholics too

Right. I have Catholics in the same bucket as Christians.

Or are you saying Christians exclude Catholics?

Definitely stating that some Christians don't regard Catholics as true Christians. I distinctly remember my cousin telling me as much. We were both 9 years old.

I think it's loosely based on the notion that Catholics worship Mary and considered it idolotry.

I didn't though this was as prevalent because, you know, the Christian faith stems from the Catholic faith (though they did have 95 gripes about the Catholic faith and had some good points with a few of them).

Not sure how prevalent it is, but I hear it quite a bit in protestant/evangelical communities. Not that I necessarily hear people say, "Catholics aren't Christians", but I do hear "Christians and Catholics" as if they are different. I cringe whenever I hear it.

 

[Zow]

Not sure how prevalent it is, but I hear it quite a bit in protestant/evangelical communities. Not that I necessarily hear people say, "Catholics aren't Christians", but I do hear "Christians and Catholics" as if they are different. I cringe whenever I hear it.

Sounds like the little brother trying to one up big brother when they both got older.

I also thought that "Christian" simply meant a person who professes a belief in Jesus Christ and that, specifically, Jesus is the son of God and his death opened the gates of heaven, So, to me, it seems at least definitionally fair to include Catholics, LDS, etc. into the bucket because my understanding is that they also follow this core belief. There are obviously then a number of significant differences within the respective faiths (e.g. adoration of Mary, whether Jesus came to the U.S. and told us to wear magic underpants, whether communion is actually God's body and we should cannibalize him, etc.).

 

[Mister CIA]

*I understand that some Christians don't want to include the LDS faith into the Christian umbrella.

Catholics too

Right. I have Catholics in the same bucket as Christians.

Or are you saying Christians exclude Catholics?

Definitely stating that some Christians don't regard Catholics as true Christians. I distinctly remember my cousin telling me as much. We were both 9 years old.

I think it's loosely based on the notion that Catholics worship Mary and considered it idolotry.

I didn't though this was as prevalent because, you know, the Christian faith stems from the Catholic faith (though they did have 95 gripes about the Catholic faith and had some good points with a few of them).

Not sure how prevalent it is, but I hear it quite a bit in protestant/evangelical communities. Not that I necessarily hear people say, "Catholics aren't Christians", but I do hear "Christians and Catholics" as if they are different. I cringe whenever I hear it.

But this brings up a salient point - Why would I give the message of Paddington credence, or any other Christian, when they themselves cannot agree? Not to knock anyone, but I suspect that *comfort* is what drives most peoples choices when it comes to religion, philosophy, etc. - as it does for me. How else would one choose a Christian church, sect, tribe, or otherwise? ...EDIT: besides guilt.

 

[Zow]

I don't say all of this to try to provide nice clean answers to tough questions. I say it to point out how I truly believe "general Christian belief" can miss the mark and shouldn't always be held up as a proper interpretation of what the Bible is about and who God is. This is all a widely-known interpretation among Biblical scholars, yet mostly hidden from the average Christian. It's no wonder the Bible is generally seen as total bunk based on the way we usually read it and talk about it. However, the more I learn, the more I think it is absolutely brilliant. And, no, it certainly doesn't answer all my questions about God. It raises a lot of questions.

I very much appreciate this breakdown (I didn't want to quote all of it due to the size, but I'm referring to your entire post). It's a great example as to why I'm glad we have this thread and what it has morphed into.

 

[Mister CIA]

Not sure how prevalent it is, but I hear it quite a bit in protestant/evangelical communities. Not that I necessarily hear people say, "Catholics aren't Christians", but I do hear "Christians and Catholics" as if they are different. I cringe whenever I hear it.

Sounds like the little brother trying to one up big brother when they both got older.

I also thought that "Christian" simply meant a person who professes a belief in Jesus Christ and that, specifically, Jesus is the son of God and his death opened the gates of heaven, So, to me, it seems at least definitionally fair to include Catholics, LDS, etc. into the bucket because my understanding is that they also follow this core belief. There are obviously then a number of significant differences within the respective faiths (e.g. adoration of Mary, whether Jesus came to the U.S. and told us to wear magic underpants, whether communion is actually God's body and we should cannibalize him, etc.).

Don't Jehovah's Witness's belive that only 144,000 people can enter heaven? Granted, they are an outlier.

 

[Zow]

Not sure how prevalent it is, but I hear it quite a bit in protestant/evangelical communities. Not that I necessarily hear people say, "Catholics aren't Christians", but I do hear "Christians and Catholics" as if they are different. I cringe whenever I hear it.

Sounds like the little brother trying to one up big brother when they both got older.

I also thought that "Christian" simply meant a person who professes a belief in Jesus Christ and that, specifically, Jesus is the son of God and his death opened the gates of heaven, So, to me, it seems at least definitionally fair to include Catholics, LDS, etc. into the bucket because my understanding is that they also follow this core belief. There are obviously then a number of significant differences within the respective faiths (e.g. adoration of Mary, whether Jesus came to the U.S. and told us to wear magic underpants, whether communion is actually God's body and we should cannibalize him, etc.).

Don't Jehovah's Witness's belive that only 144,000 people can enter heaven? Granted, they are an outlier.

Yes, because I think that's the literal number in the Bible. From Revelations maybe? I should know this as I wrote a short satire about them being right when I was in college. Obvious the more sensible interpretation is that 144,000 symbolized a large but finite number because a literal interpretation would suggest that less than a fraction of 1% of us get to go to Heaven - which just seems selfish and cruel. But, alas, our friendly bear OP may interpret this literally as well.

Again, though, I would consider a Watchtower Society Member a Christian because, again, they also belief that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, and they profess to follow his teachings (and then, of course, they veer off into how they interpret his teachings...).

 

[dgreen]

I don't say all of this to try to provide nice clean answers to tough questions. I say it to point out how I truly believe "general Christian belief" can miss the mark and shouldn't always be held up as a proper interpretation of what the Bible is about and who God is. This is all a widely-known interpretation among Biblical scholars, yet mostly hidden from the average Christian. It's no wonder the Bible is generally seen as total bunk based on the way we usually read it and talk about it. However, the more I learn, the more I think it is absolutely brilliant. And, no, it certainly doesn't answer all my questions about God. It raises a lot of questions.

I very much appreciate this breakdown (I didn't want to quote all of it due to the size, but I'm referring to your entire post). It's a great example as to why I'm glad we have thisthread and what it has morphed into.

Thanks. So much of this is new to me and things I've learned the last 3+ years. I've gone to church my whole life and always struggled with the Bible. The typical approach and answers just never seemed to satisfy me. Learning from scholarly-type of people has really opened up a whole new way to think about things and, to me, just makes so much more senese.

 

[Zow]

I don't say all of this to try to provide nice clean answers to tough questions. I say it to point out how I truly believe "general Christian belief" can miss the mark and shouldn't always be held up as a proper interpretation of what the Bible is about and who God is. This is all a widely-known interpretation among Biblical scholars, yet mostly hidden from the average Christian. It's no wonder the Bible is generally seen as total bunk based on the way we usually read it and talk about it. However, the more I learn, the more I think it is absolutely brilliant. And, no, it certainly doesn't answer all my questions about God. It raises a lot of questions.

I very much appreciate this breakdown (I didn't want to quote all of it due to the size, but I'm referring to your entire post). It's a great example as to why I'm glad we have thisthread and what it has morphed into.

Thanks. So much of this is new to me and things I've learned the last 3+ years. I've gone to church my whole life and always struggled with the Bible. The typical approach and answers just never seemed to satisfy me. Learning from scholarly-type of people has really opened up a whole new way to think about things and, to me, just makes so much more senese.

To me, any of us at all considering the faith should engage in the bold. I did, and it actually is a major factor as to why I'm an atheist. But, I can totally see and appreciate why it could do the opposite for somebody else. Nonetheless, we should all appreciate the effort and respect each other's positions one a person has engaged in active scholarly learning about the Bible (or any notable religious document, for that matter).

 

[Joe Schmo]

Not sure how prevalent it is, but I hear it quite a bit in protestant/evangelical communities. Not that I necessarily hear people say, "Catholics aren't Christians", but I do hear "Christians and Catholics" as if they are different. I cringe whenever I hear it.

Sounds like the little brother trying to one up big brother when they both got older.

I also thought that "Christian" simply meant a person who professes a belief in Jesus Christ and that, specifically, Jesus is the son of God and his death opened the gates of heaven, So, to me, it seems at least definitionally fair to include Catholics, LDS, etc. into the bucket because my understanding is that they also follow this core belief. There are obviously then a number of significant differences within the respective faiths (e.g. adoration of Mary, whether Jesus came to the U.S. and told us to wear magic underpants, whether communion is actually God's body and we should cannibalize him, etc.).

Don't Jehovah's Witness's belive that only 144,000 people can enter heaven? Granted, they are an outlier.

Yes, because I think that's the literal number in the Bible. From Revelations maybe? I should know this as I wrote a short satire about them being right when I was in college. Obvious the more sensible interpretation is that 144,000 symbolized a large but finite number because a literal interpretation would suggest that less than a fraction of 1% of us get to go to Heaven - which just seems selfish and cruel. But, alas, our friendly bear OP may interpret this literally as well.

Again, though, I would consider a Watchtower Society Member a Christian because, again, they also belief that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, and they profess to follow his teachings (and then, of course, they veer off into how they interpret his teachings...).

My sister and her family are Jehova's and they believe 144,000 get to be with god in heaven but the rest of the saved folks will be living in paradise here on earth for all eternity so it's a win-win to be a believer. For those of us non-believers we simply cease to exist. I told her that was ok with me as if I don't exist then I wont have the ability to care about not being on heaven on earth. She thought that was sad.

 

[Zow]

@Joe Schmo thanks for clarifying that. I forgot that JW's had that "out" to make their strict 144k interpretation more palatable.

As for best after life promise, I'm personally torn between the LDS belief that their best believers get a universe and the Muslim belief that a righteous believer will get 72 virgins with beautiful eyes and fair skin. Both seem like pretty good end results - though both sound nonetheless like a lot of work!

 

[Spartans Rule]

I also thought that "Christian" simply meant a person who professes a belief in Jesus Christ and that, specifically, Jesus is the son of God and his death opened the gates of heaven, So, to me, it seems at least definitionally fair to include Catholics, LDS, etc. into the bucket because my understanding is that they also follow this core belief.

I went to a Baptist church for a while as a kid and they were very adamant that Catholics, Mormons, etc. were not Christians and were hellbound. I wasn't going to fight with them on theology, but just from a semantics standpoint it seemed silly to exclude people who worship Christ from the Christian umbrella, even if you think they're doing it wrong.