This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.
Thanks. And as @IvanKaramazov said, different churches have different styles with a more intentional "call to action" to use a business word where they will more actively try to bring people in.
That style is often mocked or frowned upon as you experienced but it's also biblical as one of Jesus most important teachings, often referred to as "The Great Commission" is to go out and make disciples of the faith.
16 Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
18 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[a] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
It's costly though. It's a lot easier to be chill and never call people to action. People who follow Jesus' teaching there are often labeled "Bible Thumpers" or mocked for following the command. It's life.
Agreed all around. I completely understand that proselytizing is what we're supposed to do. But one thing that has made a big impression on me over the years -- in this thread, but also in many, many others -- is how many people seem to have had a negative experience with the church or with a particular believer, and how much that turns them off to Christianity. People anchor their entire system of unbelief to those experiences. And it's not just one or two people. This is a common experience, based on my reading of internet posts from strangers.
In real life, I do actually try to win people over, but it is so subtle and light-handed that I'm not sure that it even counts as ministry. As you can imagine, I work around a lot of atheists/agnostics. The people in my circle who go to church are people who report to me or my peers. There are only two people in my peer group of 30 or so who I know for sure are church-goers, and I am one of those two. There are probably several who I don't know about, to be fair, but going to church on Sunday is not normal behavior for people like me. When people ask about my weekend, just saying something as simple as "Well, my wife and I went for a nice walk after church on Sunday, and then I pretty much just watched football the rest of the day" is kind of rebellious in a low-key way, because I'm sneaking in the "church" part. I'm making an intentional effort to make other people comfortable with Christianity and to re-normalize it in a place where it's gone barren. The @Paddington approach absolutely will not work in this setting, no offense to our OP. This feels cowardly TBH, but it's the best that I know how to do.
I never argue about religion IRL the way I do here. That's 100% counterproductive and I know that. And I'm also just not wired that way, for better or for worse.
Actually, if you want to know who made a really big impression on me recently, it's Brian from the mail room who is a greeter at my new church. We've been attending for about two years (still new, in other words lol). He was dropping off mail in my building one day and we just happened to recognize each other. I noticed that he made a deliberate effort to get my name from the little plate outside my door, and now he greets me and my wife both by name every Sunday. That happened about back in the spring, and there was no need for him to do that because I'm already pot committed. But he didn't know that, and I see that as a nice example of easy "ministry" can be in practice.
It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.
Thanks. And as @IvanKaramazov said, different churches have different styles with a more intentional "call to action" to use a business word where they will more actively try to bring people in.
That style is often mocked or frowned upon as you experienced but it's also biblical as one of Jesus most important teachings, often referred to as "The Great Commission" is to go out and make disciples of the faith.
16 Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
18 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[a] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
It's costly though. It's a lot easier to be chill and never call people to action. People who follow Jesus' teaching there are often labeled "Bible Thumpers" or mocked for following the command. It's life.
Agreed all around. I completely understand that proselytizing is what we're supposed to do. But one thing that has made a big impression on me over the years -- in this thread, but also in many, many others -- is how many people seem to have had a negative experience with the church or with a particular believer, and how much that turns them off to Christianity. People anchor their entire system of unbelief to those experiences. And it's not just one or two people. This is a common experience, based on my reading of internet posts from strangers.
In real life, I do actually try to win people over, but it is so subtle and light-handed that I'm not sure that it even counts as ministry. As you can imagine, I work around a lot of atheists/agnostics. The people in my circle who go to church are people who report to me or my peers. There are only two people in my peer group of 30 or so who I know for sure are church-goers, and I am one of those two. There are probably several who I don't know about, to be fair, but going to church on Sunday is not normal behavior for people like me. When people ask about my weekend, just saying something as simple as "Well, my wife and I went for a nice walk after church on Sunday, and then I pretty much just watched football the rest of the day" is kind of rebellious in a low-key way, because I'm sneaking in the "church" part. I'm making an intentional effort to make other people comfortable with Christianity and to re-normalize it in a place where it's gone barren. The @Paddington approach absolutely will not work in this setting, no offense to our OP. This feels cowardly TBH, but it's the best that I know how to do.
I never argue about religion IRL the way I do here. That's 100% counterproductive and I know that. And I'm also just not wired that way, for better or for worse.
And I've got a lot of thoughts on this I'll try to put together later.
Threads like these are interesting/useful/heartbreaking as they're naturally a place to gather and highlight all the negative stories where Christians have made others angry or done a poor job in representing our faith and/or Jesus. And as you mentioned, many are connected to a negative experience with evangelism.
It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.
Thanks. And as @IvanKaramazov said, different churches have different styles with a more intentional "call to action" to use a business word where they will more actively try to bring people in.
That style is often mocked or frowned upon as you experienced but it's also biblical as one of Jesus most important teachings, often referred to as "The Great Commission" is to go out and make disciples of the faith.
16 Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
18 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[a] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
It's costly though. It's a lot easier to be chill and never call people to action. People who follow Jesus' teaching there are often labeled "Bible Thumpers" or mocked for following the command. It's life.
Agreed all around. I completely understand that proselytizing is what we're supposed to do. But one thing that has made a big impression on me over the years -- in this thread, but also in many, many others -- is how many people seem to have had a negative experience with the church or with a particular believer, and how much that turns them off to Christianity. People anchor their entire system of unbelief to those experiences. And it's not just one or two people. This is a common experience, based on my reading of internet posts from strangers.
In real life, I do actually try to win people over, but it is so subtle and light-handed that I'm not sure that it even counts as ministry. As you can imagine, I work around a lot of atheists/agnostics. The people in my circle who go to church are people who report to me or my peers. There are only two people in my peer group of 30 or so who I know for sure are church-goers, and I am one of those two. There are probably several who I don't know about, to be fair, but going to church on Sunday is not normal behavior for people like me. When people ask about my weekend, just saying something as simple as "Well, my wife and I went for a nice walk after church on Sunday, and then I pretty much just watched football the rest of the day" is kind of rebellious in a low-key way, because I'm sneaking in the "church" part. I'm making an intentional effort to make other people comfortable with Christianity and to re-normalize it in a place where it's gone barren. The @Paddington approach absolutely will not work in this setting, no offense to our OP. This feels cowardly TBH, but it's the best that I know how to do.
I never argue about religion IRL the way I do here. That's 100% counterproductive and I know that. And I'm also just not wired that way, for better or for worse.
It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.
Thanks. And as @IvanKaramazov said, different churches have different styles with a more intentional "call to action" to use a business word where they will more actively try to bring people in.
That style is often mocked or frowned upon as you experienced but it's also biblical as one of Jesus most important teachings, often referred to as "The Great Commission" is to go out and make disciples of the faith.
16 Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
18 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[a] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
It's costly though. It's a lot easier to be chill and never call people to action. People who follow Jesus' teaching there are often labeled "Bible Thumpers" or mocked for following the command. It's life.
Agreed all around. I completely understand that proselytizing is what we're supposed to do. But one thing that has made a big impression on me over the years -- in this thread, but also in many, many others -- is how many people seem to have had a negative experience with the church or with a particular believer, and how much that turns them off to Christianity. People anchor their entire system of unbelief to those experiences. And it's not just one or two people. This is a common experience, based on my reading of internet posts from strangers.
In real life, I do actually try to win people over, but it is so subtle and light-handed that I'm not sure that it even counts as ministry. As you can imagine, I work around a lot of atheists/agnostics. The people in my circle who go to church are people who report to me or my peers. There are only two people in my peer group of 30 or so who I know for sure are church-goers, and I am one of those two. There are probably several who I don't know about, to be fair, but going to church on Sunday is not normal behavior for people like me. When people ask about my weekend, just saying something as simple as "Well, my wife and I went for a nice walk after church on Sunday, and then I pretty much just watched football the rest of the day" is kind of rebellious in a low-key way, because I'm sneaking in the "church" part. I'm making an intentional effort to make other people comfortable with Christianity and to re-normalize it in a place where it's gone barren. The @Paddington approach absolutely will not work in this setting, no offense to our OP. This feels cowardly TBH, but it's the best that I know how to do.
I never argue about religion IRL the way I do here. That's 100% counterproductive and I know that. And I'm also just not wired that way, for better or for worse.
I am gonna have to disagree with you on that. The straightforward approach is the best approach. Tell people the truth and let them decide. Meeting around the bush and dropping hints doesn't really get through to people the way it needs to. You have to look at how Jesus and the disciples ministered to people. They were not shy about it. I am not saying to shove it down people's throats. But for those who want to know the truth I believe that you need to tell them the truth unfiltered and let them decide. We are accountable before God for telling people the truth, and they are accountable before God for believing it or not. It's not a Christian's job to force people to be Christians, but it is a Christian's job to tell people the truth.
I am gonna have to disagree with you on that. The straightforward approach is the best approach. Tell people the truth and let them decide. Meeting around the bush and dropping hints doesn't really get through to people the way it needs to. You have to look at how Jesus and the disciples ministered to people. They were not shy about it. I am not saying to shove it down people's throats. But for those who want to know the truth I believe that you need to tell them the truth unfiltered and let them decide. We are accountable before God for telling people the truth, and they are accountable before God for believing it or not. It's not a Christian's job to force people to be Christians, but it is a Christian's job to tell people the truth.
I can say with near 100% certainty that I will never be a Christian again, at least not in a form that believes Jesus died on the cross to save me from sins. However, I am drawn to mimic the behaviors of those who work hard to emulate Jesus' teachings. That is far more powerful than hearing the "truth" or that I need to repent for my sins.
To put things in to context, what is your first response if I were to write to you "The teachings of the Buddha are the truth"? Would it be, "hmmm. Maybe I've got this Jesus thing wrong. Let me find out more about this Buddha guy"?
It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.
Thanks. And as @IvanKaramazov said, different churches have different styles with a more intentional "call to action" to use a business word where they will more actively try to bring people in.
That style is often mocked or frowned upon as you experienced but it's also biblical as one of Jesus most important teachings, often referred to as "The Great Commission" is to go out and make disciples of the faith.
16 Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
18 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[a] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
It's costly though. It's a lot easier to be chill and never call people to action. People who follow Jesus' teaching there are often labeled "Bible Thumpers" or mocked for following the command. It's life.
Agreed all around. I completely understand that proselytizing is what we're supposed to do. But one thing that has made a big impression on me over the years -- in this thread, but also in many, many others -- is how many people seem to have had a negative experience with the church or with a particular believer, and how much that turns them off to Christianity. People anchor their entire system of unbelief to those experiences. And it's not just one or two people. This is a common experience, based on my reading of internet posts from strangers.
In real life, I do actually try to win people over, but it is so subtle and light-handed that I'm not sure that it even counts as ministry. As you can imagine, I work around a lot of atheists/agnostics. The people in my circle who go to church are people who report to me or my peers. There are only two people in my peer group of 30 or so who I know for sure are church-goers, and I am one of those two. There are probably several who I don't know about, to be fair, but going to church on Sunday is not normal behavior for people like me. When people ask about my weekend, just saying something as simple as "Well, my wife and I went for a nice walk after church on Sunday, and then I pretty much just watched football the rest of the day" is kind of rebellious in a low-key way, because I'm sneaking in the "church" part. I'm making an intentional effort to make other people comfortable with Christianity and to re-normalize it in a place where it's gone barren. The @Paddington approach absolutely will not work in this setting, no offense to our OP. This feels cowardly TBH, but it's the best that I know how to do.
I never argue about religion IRL the way I do here. That's 100% counterproductive and I know that. And I'm also just not wired that way, for better or for worse.
I am gonna have to disagree with you on that. The straightforward approach is the best approach. Tell people the truth and let them decide. Meeting around the bush and dropping hints doesn't really get through to people the way it needs to. You have to look at how Jesus and the disciples ministered to people. They were not shy about it. I am not saying to shove it down people's throats. But for those who want to know the truth I believe that you need to tell them the truth unfiltered and let them decide. We are accountable before God for telling people the truth, and they are accountable before God for believing it or not. It's not a Christian's job to force people to be Christians, but it is a Christian's job to tell people the truth.
Nobody in our worlds would respond well to his approach. But not everybody's like us.
Trying to be nice to a guy who successfully got a 24 page thread going on a forum that he barely participates in. It seems like that at least deserves a cap tip.
Multiple layered parables are what you call straightforward? Things like "give unto Caesar" and "turn the other cheek" were straightforward? Jesus was certainly the straightforward messiah that the people were waiting for. "Beating around the bush" to navigate around the ever-present Roman Empire and the looking to set a trap Pharisees was Jesus' modus operandi - assuming the gospels are to be believed.
That character was the most honest character in the entire film. He understood the world that he inhabited, and he explained it other people in a straightforward, memorable fashion. The other characters were in a situation that sucked, but the ABC guy dropped some actual wisdom on them, albeit in a way that they did not appreciate.
Glengarry Glen Ross is one my favorite movies of all time. I just hate the intrusive way they use music. But there's a lot of wisdom expressed in this movie.
I should clarify a little that when I say that it's one of my all-time favorites, that means Top 100, not Top 10. It's a really good movie though, and it's worth a rewatch knowing what you know now about the characters and the miserable occupation they chose.
Paddington, in the past page, has lost me by using a word like “truth" without hesitation, reflection, or ambivalence. Give me the anguished believer every day over a smiling, self-assured person who tosses around “truth” regarding things we cannot verify in any way but miracles and hope.
I much prefer the approach of Oliver Wendell Jones of Bloom County fame. Here was an agnostic, atheistic computer programmer who allowed himself his moment of doubt every year. His moment of doubt the year we checked in on him found him contemplating the sky and hollering “The world is a little too darned orderly to be just a big accident!”
I find that attitude and those odds a lot more appealing and satisfactory.
Bloom County, drawn by Berkely Breathed, was one of my favorite comic strips, and this is a favorite of a favorite. I have to agree with Oliver. The universe IS just a little too darned orderly …
Glengarry Glen Ross is one my favorite movies of all time. I just hate the intrusive way they use music. But there's a lot of wisdom expressed in this movie.
Thinking about the passing of Jimmy Carter, being a Christian in America used to mean something quite different. President Carter, like most of his generation, lived a decent, honorable and quiet life based on Judeo-Christian values.
(not sure why we never called it Abrahamic values to include the third popular religion that has roughly the same origin story, but hey, ‘murica)
Of course, that was also a time when you could still make a plausible argument we lived in a Christendom society. That is no longer true, and for that I am thankful.
Used to be the average doctor, teacher or small businessman joined the First Baptist church for a lot of the same reasons they might belong to Kiwanis or Lions Club or the Rotary. To give back to the community. The motivation seemed (in my view) questionable at best. The church was just another box folks ticked off to be one of the local pseudo elites, a form of networking. Being a Christ follower was ancillary. Belief system was secondary to trying to be a good person.
That is a twisted perversion of the gospel. IMO? Not really, I mean just with respect to what scripture says.
John 3:16-18 ESV
““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
John 3:16-18 MSG
““This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person’s failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.”
I rather like the society that allows for the freedom to say “No, I don’t belong to church because my parents did. Or because it’s expected I should. I belong because I have a heartfelt need to worship God. My life was going in one direction before Jesus, and everything changed after I met him.”
That seems more authentic.
One aspect of living outside of the comfort of Christendom is nonbelievers feel unfettered to question Christianity and the Church. Religion truly was an opiate to control the masses, for centuries. Still is in other parts of the world.
Having a (broad sweeping brush strokes incoming) negative view of Christians, Christianity and the Christian church seems like the default today. I am unbothered by this but some view it as (drumroll) persecution. I think of the p word as limited to places where the gospel is outlawed, believers are jailed, lives are threatened.
Every year friends of mine go on a medical mission to Burkina Faso. They send a team of optometrists (one OD, handful of hastily trained technicians who do field examinations), along with several hundred glasses prepared with common corrective vision prescriptions. It’s a bit of a pseudo covert operation - they obtain visas based on the medical mission, but don’t bring up they’re also going to be preaching the gospel, performing Christian-centric plays, singing worship songs. Anyway, bad place to be a believer. Jihadist insurgents kill small groups Christians on the regular.
Now see, to my way of thinking, that is persecution. Somebody telling you Happy Holidays or mocking your creationist views is not.
I’m rambling, and not sure any of that was especially helpful.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
I don't disagree with what you're saying here as a matter of theology, but the practical way that most people (or many people, at least) come to faith is by engaging with the source material with an open mind. "Engaging with an open mind" isn't even close to the same thing as "belief" in the way that you and I are using that term, but it implies a person might be pretending, for lack of a better term, during a particular stage of their faith maturation. I very strongly believe that we shouldn't make people feel bad about that. or that there's something wrong with them for having ordinary questions about things.
So is faith a gift or not? If one cannot have faith unless God via the Holy Spirit gives it to them then how can it be anything but?
The goal shouldn't be tell someone that they need to get something they cannot get on their own, it should be to give them a reason to be open to receiving the gift when and if such a time comes. Telling them they will burn in hell for something they have no, or little control over isn't opening many hearts and minds to give such an evil god a second thought.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Christ said "believe" and did not put a qualitative value on belief. "More likely than not" would seem to satisfy the message in John 3:16. I'm not aware of any actual verses that require unconditional, unquestioning faith.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Christ said "believe" and did not put a qualitative value on belief. "More likely than not" would seem to satisfy the message in John 3:16. I'm not aware of any actual verses that require unconditional, unquestioning faith.
I agree with your point but I also think it's more than just putting a probability on it. This may seem like a silly point to make, but I think it's important to be aware that Jesus never said "believe" because he didn't speak English. And he didn't live in a 21st Century American culture that understands "belief" in a particular way. He probably said אֲמַן and John wrote πιστεύω. That means translators now have to do their best to try to use English words to help us understand what John meant with what he wrote. It's my understanding that their language and culture of their time would not have the meaning be something like "agree to a particular proposition in your mind". I believe we've ruined the mission by trying to get people to reach a particular conclusion in their mind. It's no wonder we do that, though, since we value being right about things. As long as I hold the right ideas in my mind, then I must be good to go!
At the end of Matthew, when Jesus gives the Great Commission to go and make disciples, Matthew says, "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Then Jesus tells them, including those who doubted, to go and make disciples. There's room in the mission for doubters. And not just room, but they can have the same active role as those who don't doubt. That's a picture of faith; making disciples (which means becoming just like your rabbi - or, as Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ") even if you don't have that unconditional, unquestioning belief in your mind.
I don't want to make it sound like I think believing in your mind is irrelevant. It should be extremely relevant. If one believes particular things about God, one should act on those beliefs. But many don't believe or have moments of doubt. Great faith is shown by living a particular way even when one doubts. When I have my moments of wondering if this whole God-thing is totally made up, I'm faithful by living as if I trust it is real. If I can love my enemy despite doubting that that's the right way to live, then I'm being faithful and showing great trust in God's ways.
Right now, I'd guess that the ideal is believing in your mind and properly acting on those beliefs. Next I'd say is acting as if one believed even if they don't believe. Third would be those who believe in their mind but don't act as if they do. As last, obviously, would be people who neither believe nor act.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Christ said "believe" and did not put a qualitative value on belief. "More likely than not" would seem to satisfy the message in John 3:16. I'm not aware of any actual verses that require unconditional, unquestioning faith.
I agree with your point but I also think it's more than just putting a probability on it. This may seem like a silly point to make, but I think it's important to be aware that Jesus never said "believe" because he didn't speak English. And he didn't live in a 21st Century American culture that understands "belief" in a particular way. He probably said אֲמַן and John wrote πιστεύω. That means translators now have to do their best to try to use English words to help us understand what John meant with what he wrote. It's my understanding that their language and culture of their time would not have the meaning be something like "agree to a particular proposition in your mind". I believe we've ruined the mission by trying to get people to reach a particular conclusion in their mind. It's no wonder we do that, though, since we value being right about things. As long as I hold the right ideas in my mind, then I must be good to go!
At the end of Matthew, when Jesus gives the Great Commission to go and make disciples, Matthew says, "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Then Jesus tells them, including those who doubted, to go and make disciples. There's room in the mission for doubters. And not just room, but they can have the same active role as those who don't doubt. That's a picture of faith; making disciples (which means becoming just like your rabbi - or, as Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ") even if you don't have that unconditional, unquestioning belief in your mind.
I don't want to make it sound like I think believing in your mind is irrelevant. It should be extremely relevant. If one believes particular things about God, one should act on those beliefs. But many don't believe or have moments of doubt. Great faith is shown by living a particular way even when one doubts. When I have my moments of wondering if this whole God-thing is totally made up, I'm faithful by living as if I trust it is real. If I can love my enemy despite doubting that that's the right way to live, then I'm being faithful and showing great trust in God's ways.
Right now, I'd guess that the ideal is believing in your mind and properly acting on those beliefs. Next I'd say is acting as if one believed even if they don't believe. Third would be those who believe in their mind but don't act as if they do. As last, obviously, would be people who neither believe nor act.
This is a very good point. I think there's an unappreciated gulf between the way that believers and non-believers use terms like "belief" and "faith." It's not that either side is using those terms incorrectly, just that we're using them differently. And that's kind of what's happening in this conversation. I think @Mister CIA is using the term "belief" like "hold the view that a particular empirical statement is true" and we mean something more like "trust the other guy to do what he said he was going to do." Same word, but two different concepts.
A GI who said that he believed in General Eisenhower wasn't saying that he thinks Ike exists. He meant that he had confidence that D-Day would succeed.
With regard to the bolded, James addressed that one and he's on your side.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Christ said "believe" and did not put a qualitative value on belief. "More likely than not" would seem to satisfy the message in John 3:16. I'm not aware of any actual verses that require unconditional, unquestioning faith.
I agree with your point but I also think it's more than just putting a probability on it. This may seem like a silly point to make, but I think it's important to be aware that Jesus never said "believe" because he didn't speak English. And he didn't live in a 21st Century American culture that understands "belief" in a particular way. He probably said אֲמַן and John wrote πιστεύω. That means translators now have to do their best to try to use English words to help us understand what John meant with what he wrote. It's my understanding that their language and culture of their time would not have the meaning be something like "agree to a particular proposition in your mind". I believe we've ruined the mission by trying to get people to reach a particular conclusion in their mind. It's no wonder we do that, though, since we value being right about things. As long as I hold the right ideas in my mind, then I must be good to go!
At the end of Matthew, when Jesus gives the Great Commission to go and make disciples, Matthew says, "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Then Jesus tells them, including those who doubted, to go and make disciples. There's room in the mission for doubters. And not just room, but they can have the same active role as those who don't doubt. That's a picture of faith; making disciples (which means becoming just like your rabbi - or, as Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ") even if you don't have that unconditional, unquestioning belief in your mind.
I don't want to make it sound like I think believing in your mind is irrelevant. It should be extremely relevant. If one believes particular things about God, one should act on those beliefs. But many don't believe or have moments of doubt. Great faith is shown by living a particular way even when one doubts. When I have my moments of wondering if this whole God-thing is totally made up, I'm faithful by living as if I trust it is real. If I can love my enemy despite doubting that that's the right way to live, then I'm being faithful and showing great trust in God's ways.
Right now, I'd guess that the ideal is believing in your mind and properly acting on those beliefs. Next I'd say is acting as if one believed even if they don't believe. Third would be those who believe in their mind but don't act as if they do. As last, obviously, would be people who neither believe nor act.
This is a very good point. I think there's an unappreciated gulf between the way that believers and non-believers use terms like "belief" and "faith." It's not that either side is using those terms incorrectly, just that we're using them differently. And that's kind of what's happening in this conversation. I think @Mister CIA is using the term "belief" like "hold the view that a particular empirical statement is true" and we mean something more like "trust the other guy to do what he said he was going to do." Same word, but two different concepts.
With regard to the bolded, James addressed that one and he's on your side.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Christ said "believe" and did not put a qualitative value on belief. "More likely than not" would seem to satisfy the message in John 3:16. I'm not aware of any actual verses that require unconditional, unquestioning faith.
I agree with your point but I also think it's more than just putting a probability on it. This may seem like a silly point to make, but I think it's important to be aware that Jesus never said "believe" because he didn't speak English. And he didn't live in a 21st Century American culture that understands "belief" in a particular way. He probably said אֲמַן and John wrote πιστεύω. That means translators now have to do their best to try to use English words to help us understand what John meant with what he wrote. It's my understanding that their language and culture of their time would not have the meaning be something like "agree to a particular proposition in your mind". I believe we've ruined the mission by trying to get people to reach a particular conclusion in their mind. It's no wonder we do that, though, since we value being right about things. As long as I hold the right ideas in my mind, then I must be good to go!
At the end of Matthew, when Jesus gives the Great Commission to go and make disciples, Matthew says, "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Then Jesus tells them, including those who doubted, to go and make disciples. There's room in the mission for doubters. And not just room, but they can have the same active role as those who don't doubt. That's a picture of faith; making disciples (which means becoming just like your rabbi - or, as Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ") even if you don't have that unconditional, unquestioning belief in your mind.
I don't want to make it sound like I think believing in your mind is irrelevant. It should be extremely relevant. If one believes particular things about God, one should act on those beliefs. But many don't believe or have moments of doubt. Great faith is shown by living a particular way even when one doubts. When I have my moments of wondering if this whole God-thing is totally made up, I'm faithful by living as if I trust it is real. If I can love my enemy despite doubting that that's the right way to live, then I'm being faithful and showing great trust in God's ways.
Right now, I'd guess that the ideal is believing in your mind and properly acting on those beliefs. Next I'd say is acting as if one believed even if they don't believe. Third would be those who believe in their mind but don't act as if they do. As last, obviously, would be people who neither believe nor act.
The translation is pretty clear. It's "believe" not "have faith." Those are different concepts. When Thomas didn't believe the resurrection and offered to let him stick his fingers in the crucifixion holes, Christ didn't reject him for not having faith..he acknowledged that now he believed because he saw it for himself. He then said others that believed without seeing would have greater rewards. My point is that nowhere is there a directive for blind faith. Belief, in any degree, is apparently enough. So Blaise Pascal sneaks in on a logical loophole.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
You can't 'Pretend' to believe it. You MUST believe it, take it by Faith. Faith is trusting and believing God, taking Him at His Word to the point that you surrender your will to His. If you need faith, you can pray and ask God to give it to you. The Bible says that no one can come to Faith unless the Holy Spirit draws him. All I can tell you is that Jesus Christ is True and Real and it's not a game anyone plays to convince their self. He has shown Himself in very tangible ways in my life. In so many ways, I can't count.
Christ said "believe" and did not put a qualitative value on belief. "More likely than not" would seem to satisfy the message in John 3:16. I'm not aware of any actual verses that require unconditional, unquestioning faith.
I agree with your point but I also think it's more than just putting a probability on it. This may seem like a silly point to make, but I think it's important to be aware that Jesus never said "believe" because he didn't speak English. And he didn't live in a 21st Century American culture that understands "belief" in a particular way. He probably said אֲמַן and John wrote πιστεύω. That means translators now have to do their best to try to use English words to help us understand what John meant with what he wrote. It's my understanding that their language and culture of their time would not have the meaning be something like "agree to a particular proposition in your mind". I believe we've ruined the mission by trying to get people to reach a particular conclusion in their mind. It's no wonder we do that, though, since we value being right about things. As long as I hold the right ideas in my mind, then I must be good to go!
At the end of Matthew, when Jesus gives the Great Commission to go and make disciples, Matthew says, "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Then Jesus tells them, including those who doubted, to go and make disciples. There's room in the mission for doubters. And not just room, but they can have the same active role as those who don't doubt. That's a picture of faith; making disciples (which means becoming just like your rabbi - or, as Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ") even if you don't have that unconditional, unquestioning belief in your mind.
I don't want to make it sound like I think believing in your mind is irrelevant. It should be extremely relevant. If one believes particular things about God, one should act on those beliefs. But many don't believe or have moments of doubt. Great faith is shown by living a particular way even when one doubts. When I have my moments of wondering if this whole God-thing is totally made up, I'm faithful by living as if I trust it is real. If I can love my enemy despite doubting that that's the right way to live, then I'm being faithful and showing great trust in God's ways.
Right now, I'd guess that the ideal is believing in your mind and properly acting on those beliefs. Next I'd say is acting as if one believed even if they don't believe. Third would be those who believe in their mind but don't act as if they do. As last, obviously, would be people who neither believe nor act.
The translation is pretty clear. It's "believe" not "have faith." Those are different concepts. When Thomas didn't believe the resurrection and offered to let him stick his fingers in the crucifixion holes, Christ didn't reject him for not having faith..he acknowledged that now he believed because he saw it for himself. He then said others that believed without seeing would have greater rewards. My point is that nowhere is there a directive for blind faith. Belief, in any degree, is apparently enough. So Blaise Pascal sneaks in on a logical loophole.
A translation can be clear and misleading. To us, "believe" and "have faith" can certainly be different concepts. That doesn't mean the words used in the original context were different concepts. The words we translate as either "believe" or "faith" are basically the same Greek words. I definitely agree with you that there isn't a call to be 100% sure in our brains, but I also don't think it's a call to get to 51%.
Our NT translations regularly translate a Greek word as "Jews" when it is more accurate as "Judeans" and I believe some scholars think it was a word used to describe leaders in Jerusalem (Judea). It's not a mystery why many Christians have a negative view of Jews based on our English translations talking about those "Jews".
Our translations say Eve will have pain in "child birth", but the Hebrew word is really "conception".
Adam's "rib" wasn't a rib. It was his "side". Ancient commentators talked about it as Adam being just human (since that's what the word means) split into two and then there was male and female. But, that's kind of weird, so we have "rib" because we think that makes more sense and now we have quite a few Christians who actually believe men have one less rib than women.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
It was a thought that popped into my head when reading Bobby's post, as if I were asking in response, "What do you want me to do, pretend?", if say I were addressing the larger point of the OP.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
It was a thought that popped into my head when reading Bobby's post, as if I were asking in response, "What do you want me to do, pretend?", if say I were addressing the larger point of the OP.
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
It was a thought that popped into my head when reading Bobby's post, as if I were asking in response, "What do you want me to do, pretend?", if say I were addressing the larger point of the OP.
It's got to be from the heart and yes God can see right into your heart.
Romans 10:9 NKJV
[9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no di
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
It was a thought that popped into my head when reading Bobby's post, as if I were asking in response, "What do you want me to do, pretend?", if say I were addressing the larger point of the OP.
It's got to be from the heart and yes God can see right into your heart.
Romans 10:9 NKJV
[9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no di
Bobby brings up a great point, though maybe not directly. How can I, or anyone, be a Christian if the requirement is to pretend to believe (another p word)?
It was a thought that popped into my head when reading Bobby's post, as if I were asking in response, "What do you want me to do, pretend?", if say I were addressing the larger point of the OP.
It's got to be from the heart and yes God can see right into your heart.
Romans 10:9 NKJV
[9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Not putting words into people's mouths when they ask you not to is something we've tried to do here from the start. That just feels like common courtesy. And I think we all do best when we don't do that. Especially when people specifically ask one not to. Would you agree?
It's tough to communicate sometimes, especially when random thoughts are scattered throughout my mind. In case "Stuck in craw" conveyed being mad or upset, that's not the case, rather it's the dissonance that's always revealed when these sorts of conversations take place.
So, in a roundabout fashion, I'm suggesting that you are correct, but with the added edge that's kind of what the Bible essentially is - God's word revealed through the man's word. Obviously we'll disagree, but I had hopes you might linger on that thought for a minute.
It's tough to communicate sometimes, especially when random thoughts are scattered throughout my mind. In case "Stuck in craw" conveyed being mad or upset, that's not the case, rather it's the dissonance that's always revealed when these sorts of conversations take place.
So, in a roundabout fashion, I'm suggesting that you are correct, but with the added edge that's kind of what the Bible essentially is - God's word revealed through the man's word. Obviously we'll disagree, but I had hopes you might linger on that thought for a minute.
Thanks. Not sure why you'd think obviously we disagree there. The Bible as "Putting words into Gods mouth" is an interesting thought. And something worth talking about if people think it's a good topic. I think Christians would agree the Bible is seen as the word of God written by people. God doesn't actually give us the thumbs up and say he approves of the words. But I think there's a general consensus among Christians that God approves of the words.
But that's very different from someone on a forum specifically asking another person to not put words in their mouth. Which was my only point there.
It's tough to communicate sometimes, especially when random thoughts are scattered throughout my mind. In case "Stuck in craw" conveyed being mad or upset, that's not the case, rather it's the dissonance that's always revealed when these sorts of conversations take place.
So, in a roundabout fashion, I'm suggesting that you are correct, but with the added edge that's kind of what the Bible essentially is - God's word revealed through the man's word. Obviously we'll disagree, but I had hopes you might linger on that thought for a minute.
That seems like a reasonable description. Believers hold that God inspired the words written in the 66 books of the Bible. We believe it to be God’s word - but no one can deny a human hand penned those word. Since at least the reformation (& likely earlier but I’m just thinking of what has been recorded), theologians have rejected the idea that Biblical authors were merely dictating what God audibly spoke.
We do have specific circumstances when God spoke audibly, but it is rare. To Moses on Mount Sinai when he received law (at least 8x); when John the Baptist baptized Jesus and the Holy Spirit descended on him; to the inner circle (James, John, Peter) during the Transfiguration.
Exceptions, not the rule.
The Bible records God speaking audibly to people many times, but it's not always clear if it was audible, an inner voice, or a mental impression.
Exodus 3:14
Joshua 1:1
Judges 6:18
1 Samuel 3:11
2 Samuel 2:1
Job 40:1
Isaiah 7:3
Jeremiah 1:7
Acts 8:26
Acts 9:15
God's voice is also mentioned more than 650 timesin the Bible. The New Testament also mentions "a voice from heaven" in several passages, including the baptism of Jesus and the transfiguration.
Not sure why anyone fixated on the use of an idiom.
I was more struck by you foisting the notion “isn't the Bible just man's effort to put words into God's mouth”, as if scripture were a make believe fairytale.
There are 9 literary styles used in the Bible.
• LAW
• NARRATIVE
• POETRY
• WISDOM
• PROPHECY
• GOSPELS
• PARABLES
• LETTERS
• APOCALYPTIC
Brother man, we should take the Bible as it presents itself. None of the historical books or poetry or songs or letters says “Once upon a time.” I don’t think there is any purpose to labeling it as fantasy or fiction other than to mock the idea it is God’s word, and to imply believers must have removed themselves from intellect & reason.
Now if you’re so insecure that you’re going to resort to pushing folks away by insulting them, that’s cool, I can respect that, just disengage & walk away.
I don’t think there is any purpose to labeling it as fantasy or fiction other than to mock the idea it is God’s word, and to imply believers must have removed themselves from intellect & reason.
I'll repeat that the vast majority of Biblical scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, have concluded that there are absolutely parts of the Bible that are myth with many of the stories borrowed from other ancient literature.
Examples:
In Sumerian mythology, Inanna descends to the realm of the dead, is stripped of her power, and dies. She is eventually resurrected and returns to the world.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Mesopotamian epic, contains a flood story featuring Utnapishtim, who is instructed by a god to build a boat to save his family and animals from a great flood. The details of sending out birds and the aftermath of the flood closely mirror the biblical account. It also references a paradise-like garden and a plant that grants immortality, lost due to human actions.
The Legend of Sargon, an Akkadian text, describes how King Sargon of Akkad was placed in a basket of reeds and set adrift on a river, only to be rescued and rise to greatness.
Other ancient myths, such as Osiris (Egypt) and Tammuz (Mesopotamia), feature gods who die and are resurrected.
There needs to be some humility when it comes to saying "the Bible is the word of God" because what you're likely also willing to say is all the religious texts before and after the Bible aren't the word of God. It just so happens the one you follow is. That's a bit too convenient to be taken as a conclusion founded on intellect and reason.
If you want to believe the Bible is the word of God, great. But I don't think you should be surprised or sensitive when that premise is challenged.
I don’t think there is any purpose to labeling it as fantasy or fiction other than to mock the idea it is God’s word, and to imply believers must have removed themselves from intellect & reason.
I'll repeat that the vast majority of Biblical scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, have concluded that there are absolutely parts of the Bible that are myth with many of the stories borrowed from other ancient literature.
Examples:
In Sumerian mythology, Inanna descends to the realm of the dead, is stripped of her power, and dies. She is eventually resurrected and returns to the world.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Mesopotamian epic, contains a flood story featuring Utnapishtim, who is instructed by a god to build a boat to save his family and animals from a great flood. The details of sending out birds and the aftermath of the flood closely mirror the biblical account. It also references a paradise-like garden and a plant that grants immortality, lost due to human actions.
The Legend of Sargon, an Akkadian text, describes how King Sargon of Akkad was placed in a basket of reeds and set adrift on a river, only to be rescued and rise to greatness.
Other ancient myths, such as Osiris (Egypt) and Tammuz (Mesopotamia), feature gods who die and are resurrected.
There needs to be some humility when it comes to saying "the Bible is the word of God" because what you're likely also willing to say is all the religious texts before and after the Bible aren't the word of God. It just so happens the one you follow is. That's a bit too convenient to be taken as a conclusion founded on intellect and reason.
If you want to believe the Bible is the word of God, great. But I don't think you should be surprised or sensitive when that premise is challenged.
There are cases of borrowing, but in these cases the Bible was the source, not the pagan myths (despite pseudo-academic claims to the contrary).
Let’s use one you bring up, thr case of Sargon’s birth. Legend has it that Sargon was placed in a reed basket and sent down the river by his mother. He was rescued by by Aqqi, who then adopted him as his own son. That sounds a lot like the story of Moses in Exodus 2. And Sargon lived about 800 years before Moses was born. So the Moses baby-sent-down-the-river-only-to-be-rescued-and-adopted story must have been borrowed from Sargon, right?
That sounds reasonable, but what is known of Sargon comes almost entirely from legends written many hundreds of years after his death.
There are very few contemporary records of Sargon’s life. The legend of Sargon’s childhood, how he was placed in a basket and sent down a river, comes from two 7th century B.C. cuneiform tablets (from the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, who reigned from 668 to 627 B.C.), written hundreds of years after the book of Exodus.
If someone wants to argue that one account was borrowed from another, it would have to be the other way around: the Sargon legend appears to have borrowed from the Exodus account of Moses.
Did the Bible copy the Flood account from other myths and legends?
It is true that the Genesis flood account shares many striking similarities with the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, and with the Babylonian Atrahasis epic, for that matter. In fact, literally hundreds of flood traditions have been preserved all over the world, with traditions abounding in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, as well as both of the Americas, and the Genesis account shares similarities with most of them.
Of the flood traditions which have survived to the present time, about 95% describe a global cataclysmic deluge, 88% tell of a favored family of humans saved from drowning to reestablish the human race after the deluge, 66% say the family was forewarned of the coming cataclysm, 66% blame the wickedness of man for the deluge, and 70% record a boat as being the means by which the chosen family (and animals) survived the flood. More than one third of these traditions mention birds being sent out from the boat.
Since every culture has descended directly from the flood’s survivors, it is logical that stories of this traumatic event are both abundant and universal, having been passed down from generation to generation. This is certainly the case. Many of these traditions are remarkably consistent, considering the relative isolation of the cultures, the length of time that has elapsed since the flood, and the human tendency to embellish, exaggerate, and distort stories over time. The Babylonian and biblical accounts of the flood appear to represent different retellings of an essentially identical flood tradition.
Skeptics want to imagine that there was, in fact, no flood and that the Bible’s flood account was borrowed from a Babylonian myth. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise: there was, in fact, a catastrophic worldwide deluge, and the veracity of the biblical account is attested to by numerous other similar ancient accounts. In addition to abundant historical evidence, there is a wealth of physical proof in favor of the flood’s historicity. The flood of Noah’s day was most certainly a real historical event, and the biblical account of what happened is trustworthy.
This is a logical fallacy. Even if I grant you there was a flood, which is kind of irrelevant imo, that doesn't mean everything that follows is accurate. There are over 1,200,000 identified animal species in the world. Noah did not load two of them on a boat. If it took him 5 minutes to find and load each species, it would take him over 11 years of uninterrupted work to get them all. That ignores how large a ship would be required even if it was possible.
This is 'Santa loads all the toys in his sleigh' level believability.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
