# Is Noah's Ark Logical?

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years ago

Can you explain without faith how Noah's ark is logical without using faith?

Did they have the dino's on Noah's Ark?

Logic tells me that noahs ark is faith based. I mean, did the dino's wait in the single file line to board the ship?

How could a drunk man round up every animal in the world into a single file line without chaos? Did the animals drink holy water before boarding the ship?

How did the dino's not eat the other animals while waiting in line? I heard some of those dino's can be fiesty at times.

1. 61
sooner than laterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I'm going to need you to study ship building and the measurment requirements for structural sustainability. Then find out if its the same formula that we use today. anything less would seem ignorant.

2. 82
Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Hello marinealways24. In what sense do you mean logical? Are you referring to logical validity or to its reasonableness. Either way it really depends on the exact argument being considered, i.e. the assumptions, premises and conclusion.

Hope this isn’t  teaching grandma to suck eggs, but logical validity depends on whether a conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Logic is an aspect of reason, and reason is just the ability to arrive at conclusions based on assumptions and premises.

So for example:

All unicorns are white.
The animal in my garden is a unicorn.
Therefore the animal in my garden is white.

Is this argument logically valid? Yes, the conclusion necessarily follows on from the premises. Is this argument reasonable? Yes, the conclusion was reached through a form of reasoning known as deductive logic.

However, neither of these things enable me to determine the truth of the premises and underlying assumptions, i.e. do unicorns exist? Are they white? Is there an animal in my garden?

Determining whether an argument is logical adds nothing to what you know other than that the argument is logical. Logical/illogical does not equate to true/false or even probable/improbable.

I’m not sure but you seem to be looking at how logical an argument is, when what you are really interested in is its truth or falsehood and how that's determined. If so it my be helpful to explore epistemology which is concerned with how we form beliefs, different approaches to truth and different theories of knowledge. Hope this helps in some way.

1. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

This is profound!!!

3. 0
sneakorocksolidposted 11 years agoin reply to this

No it's quite possible! If you use the miracle saw from Ronco! The animal thing is easily explained. They used the Dr.Dolittle  get in line by twos quietly and in an orderly fashion majic liberal whistle!

4. 77

Maybe they just had a flood in one area, like we do here sometimes, and they just thought they were all alone.  I mean, how else could they repopulate the earth?!!!  And how do you think they kept all those animals quiet on the ark?

5. 60
underhiswingsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yep, you are ignorant.

6. 60
ionericeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Most people that know the story of Noah and the Ark are only aware of the animals going into the Ark two by two.  But would you believe that in a different story in Genesis Gawd told Noah to collect the animals by pairs of seven, male and Female. Seven of the clean animal and two of all of the unclean animals.

Ge 7:2  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his
female.

Ge 7:3  Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep
seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

The ark just got bigger! lol  What about the sea creatures?

2. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Oh Come on. The flood occured before Jesus came to make himself the finally sacrifice for man‘s sins, so animals(clean) were taken for that reason.

Genesis 7:2,3 says, "Of every CLEAN BEAST thou shalt take to thee BY SEVENS, the male and his female: and of BEASTS that are NOT CLEAN BY TWO, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; TO KEEP SEED ALIVE UPON THE FACE OF ALL THE EARTH."

The reason for the numbers in each case, is to keep seed alive of each kind, so that it may multiply, and not become extinct, after the flood. The extra number of the clean animals was necessary, because some of them were offered as a sacrifice to God immediately following the flood. Genesis 8:18,20 says, "And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him: Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark. And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and TOOK OF EVERY CLEAN BEAST, AND OF EVERY CLEAN FOWL, AND OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS ON THE ALTAR." So the extra number of clean beasts and fowls allowed for sacrifices, and still for some of the animals to live and multiply.

1. 60
ionericeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
2. 60
ionericeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Cmon back to you; It’s just a fairytale and Epic that was borrowed from the Babylonians.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Really? I'd check the facts if I were you.
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/gilga … gamesh.htm

2. 0
Denno66posted 11 years ago

Well, he could have been instructed by the town barkeep to round up every animal in their 'known world' and save it from some flash flood. Just a guess.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yes! Those bartenders are divine! But, they can be the devil!

3. 62
visitmaniacposted 11 years ago

shows what being drunk can do to a man and the crazy stories they can come up with and do lol

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Drunk? Someone was smoking reefer.

4. 0
elliot.dunnposted 11 years ago

i guess if the bigger question is the universal flood. if you can believe in the flood the ark and animals on it fall into place pretty easily.  and what's this drunk business?  Noah is by no means defined as a drunkard in Scripture despite his post-flood drinking.  that seems a little defamatory to me.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yes, also tell yourself that he didn't cuss at his children for covering up his naked body in his drunken sleep.

5. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years ago

This is as good a time as any, spiderpam plugged one of my hubs so I'll plug hers that totally answers this topic(as if the op really cares). Okay pam we‘re even.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

She says that evolution is the devil.

How logical can that and anything else be that she says? There is no logic in faith.

2. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

This video is absurd.  Your beliefs are rooted in some of the worst prejudices and you, blindly, go on spouting this garbage.  Your Bible and Intelligent Design are garbage.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Let me guess you didn't finish it and your preconceived bias short-circuited the process of learning, and even though you know nothing about evolution in your "mind" it sure beats God. Now you're really going let us Christians have it with the same ad-homonym attacks with no proof and call it "logical" 0+0=?
Why so emotional today?

Hey Sooner did you get the link I sent?

1. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

BIASED??? Wow, what the h-- is there to learn in this bs.  I'm willing to learn, but you need to have something to teach, not this abject nonsense.  And even if evolution is dead wrong, God, really  doesn't explain anything.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Right on cue! Gotta love that atheist creed.

6. 70
waynetposted 11 years ago

Of course it's logical, fitting all those animals on there, I was there and let me tell you it smelt quite bad as there was no stopping for potty time, in fact I think the arc was the start of all animal life all over the world and water was created by a flood...totally magical and logical!

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

lol, Is this theory faith based or based on logic?

1. 70
waynetposted 11 years agoin reply to this

A bit of both and fact based faith logic, because I was there and the only thing that I could record the events was with my finger and a few animal turds on the deck of the arc, then I had to visually memorize the mental image I saw on the deck.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

7. 0
Denno66posted 11 years ago

Way to go, Noah! He's still getting press after all these years!

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Faith gets good publicity.

1. 0
Denno66posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I guess so. They wrote a ginormous book about it

8. 75
Ivorwenposted 11 years ago

Of course it was logical, and sea worthy.

People lived hundreds of years, not decades.

Dinos didn't begin life huge, their eggs are not all that big.

If you have the resources to build an arc, even if it takes 100 years, then you have the resources to gather the animals and the food needed to sustain them.

Drunkenness is never mentioned until after the flood, not even amongst those left to die.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yes, very logical they lived hundreds of years when we today live no where close to that.

Very logical that they lived so many years with no science or medicine.

1. 75
Ivorwenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

In an ideal climate, with steady temps, protection from the sun, no fermentation...

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

1. 75
Ivorwenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Your words all fit Nepal, and yet, they have the longest life expectancy of any nation.

2. 60
Danny R Handposted 11 years agoin reply to this
2. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

If you look at the scientific theories of the ages of the earth, by the time Noah was supposedly alive dinos would have been extinct for a hundred thousand years or more. There is evidence that the earth has been "transformed" at least 4 or 5 times, and some scientists say that such transformations were nearly complete obliterations of the planet, each time, changing, rebuilding and evolving. It seems to make sense to me, and I'm fine with it, although there isn't enough absolute evidence to substantiate a lot of it. It just seems plausible to me.

9. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years ago

Logically, I think the ark and the flood is possible. There is already enough scientific evidence to reveal that all the land masses *do* fit together as a puzzle, and therefore, the earth, during one of it ages, had a single, large land mass. Rain was just one thing that happened to flood the earth, but it appears through scientific data that the tectonic plates did break apart, which caused massive splits in the earth's crust, releasing water from underneath the crust, miles into the atmosphere.

It's also theorized that before this period, the earth was shrouded in a cloud of vapor and so there was no direct sunlight. Thus a huge greenhouse effect. After the flood, we were exposed to direct sunlight, and several other factors which apparently caused a speeding of the human aging process.

These are all readings I've encountered through the years. There is evidence for a lot of it, although some of it is deduction based on facts.

As for Noah, I have no idea why he would have knowledge of what was to come, but I have had unexplainable things happen to me. I don't know why at times we seem to tap into an energy we can't really explain, but it does seem to happen. Although I don't really believe in God as he is taught to us by religion, I do believe there is more to understanding the powers of the universe than we can comprehend.

And now, I will end this rant.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I agree with everything you said except for Noah's Ark being possible.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Based on info from the bible, there have been one or two reconstructions, and according to many scientists, the ark could hold up. But, as to the legend of the animals showing up in twos, that really becomes the defining question. Most of the rest of it seems plausible, but not enough evidence to really know for sure.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Without enough evidence, what does it require to believe it true?

2. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years ago

The funny thing about these arguments is people trying to defend the literal physicality of the events in the bible rather than the teachings of the spirit in which it is rich in.  Fundamentalists feel they need to defend every aspect in the absolute sense rather than taking the lessons learned by the stories and morals.  A waste of time in my estimation. I am not picking on any group per se but it always seems to go this ways.

What was the teaching of Jesus and not whether he was the Son of God or the Son of Man is at the heart of the issue as to the validity of the Bible.  Jesus taught us to love one and other and forgive each other.  I don't see that being played out in these discussions.  Moses taught us the laws of living when a time of lawlessness existed. You cannot jump back and forth to counter the teachings of love and forgiveness with an eye for an eye.  Two different times in human development.

What is even more alarming is that Islam teaches peace and equality among men and women.  How has that played out in all the bickering?

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

If your premise is true, then the stories in the Bible don't need to be true at all, because they are symbols and cues for us to find who we are in a relationship with God. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but most believers take the Bible literally rather than just symbolically. The trouble is, if science begins to prove otherwise, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim you believe it literally until it doesn't hold up and then simply say that *one* story is meant symbolically. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the writings?

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I agree that you can't have it both ways.  It even says in the Bible 1 Cor.13:11 "When I was a child I talked like a child, I reasoned like a child.  When I became a man I put childish ways behind me".  What you talk about is merely a lack of maturity.  Any adult knows that you can't stuff all the species of animals in one boat and not have them eating each other or whatever.  But the idea of and ark creating a new voyage and beginning away from the sins of the past would have a more aliterative and meaningful image if you open your eyes and heart to it.
You of course have individuals who wish to maintain the fairy tale essence that was mean to be aliterative in place of the maturity it takes to grow in your understanding of the words.
Don't confuse religionists with spirituality.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

You needn't take any offense to what I wrote. None was intended. I was just making a point. And I understand yours. I agree and disagree with you, but I think at the end of the day that's quite all right. There is no disrespect to you nor anyone else in what I write.

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Daniel, I assure you I took no offense in any way. If i gave you that impression I appologize.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

None taken. All is well. I just misread what you said as being "in-your-face". My bad.

BTW, you make excellent points, and although I don't agree with some, you present your thoughts clearly. Good to exchange views with you.

2. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Things left open to interpretation contradict logic.

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Not really, how many different shades of black and white is there.  My interpretation of black may be not a purfect as yours but we probably could come to agreement as to one being termed black logiically.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Without faith.

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Determining in a literal plain.

To have faith is a different thing entirely.  Faith is something you give. In a lot of cases it needs to be earned.  And by ones deeds is the only way it can be proved.  To recognize it from the outside takes faith as well.

1. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Faith is often "taught" or beat into childrens heads from birth.

To recognize faith from the outside takes logic to understand how faith works. I agree it can be understood from the inside as well when analyzing how faith works.

2. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years agoin reply to this

That is not true. In fact, even most fundamentalists do not take all of the Bible literally. Otherwise, they'd have no trouble with the Catholic and Orthodox views on Holy Communion and the Last Supper.

All that being said, if you are a righteous, compassionate person who cherishes life, and you get word of some impending catastrophe, it is only logical that you'd go above and beyond to try to protect life from extinction.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

It's never black and white. Always shades of gray. However, the point I tried to make but didn't quite was that most scholars, whether Biblical or historical, will force most shades of gray into literal or symbolic, otherwise, the Bible becomes a contestable set of fables. I realize on the personal level this may not be true at all, but on an academic level, from what I've seen, that's pretty much where the rubber hits the road. It's either symbolic or literal. Mixing is like a contaminated science lab. But again (just one more time) on a *personal* level, I think it is shades of gray for any individual.

2. 61
marinealways24posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Ah, don't leave out the good parts.

Jesus also taught separation of believers and non believers. Did you forget that part?

You aren't picking any group? Try again. Are you serious?

Islam is a separatist religion just like Christians and every other religious group. All give faith that they teach equality when logically they teach separatism.

Islam, Christians are all the same. They all operate from faith for a 1 belief system. They create the illusion that they want peace when they are separatist belief systems.

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
3. 77
getitriteposted 11 years ago

Believing that a man could Literally do what it is claimed Noah did is delusional, and requires a leap of faith that defies logic. This is one of the most nonsensical beliefs of Christians.  Nonsense!  Think!!!

4. 61
sooner than laterposted 11 years ago

easy kiddo. now I'm gonna take my out-streched arm from your forehead- if you stop swinging your little arms.

5. 92
habeeposted 11 years ago

I think the story of Noah's Ark is symbolic. Maybe the "ark" was a "spaceship" with the DNA of the animals aboard. This would have been totally over the heads of the people of the time.

6. 92
habeeposted 11 years ago

I agree, Val. I do not take the entire Bible literally. I do, however, believe in the lessons taught by the New Testament.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Jesus quoted Genesis more than other book. He took it literally, so do I.

1. 61
sooner than laterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Amen

7. 92
habeeposted 11 years ago

But don't you agree that the NT changed many of the guidelines presented in the OT?

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yep, Jesus came to fulfill the Law so that we may be saved, since we are all sinners due to the fall of Adam. If the fall never happened and is just a metaphor what did Jesus die for?

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

His life and death were not for naught, regardless if he actually died for our sins. I'm not being devil's advocate here, really. What I mean is that his life was revolutionary, and regardless of what is fact or legend, his life has transformed countless other lives for the better. He was a source of enlightenment regardless of culture or belief. Even the most spiritual nonChristians look at his life as an example, whether they believe he died for their sins or not.

2. 82
Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

He was executed by the religious establishment because he was seen as a threat their religious beliefs, because Jesus' work was not religion or religious.

It was for people to seek inside themselves, for a way of life, where they guide their own lives, through honest thoughts and pure of heart actions, by doing deeds for others.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I agree with the top half, but that's it.

1. 82
Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Understandable.

2. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Cags, from what I can tell, what you've said here is threatening to most believers because it simply says that his life was not completely divine, although he was a luminary in his day. And yet, I don't think there's anything wrong with this idea. It just says that Jesus was amazing whether you believe he atoned for sins or not. Interesting thoughts. I think it makes him more believable to more people.

1. 82
Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I realize it appears to be threatening to believers. If they want to perceive it was a threat they can. How ever, I want to bring attention to history as it's been recorded.

Jesus was born. How is a question for debate? A mystery, to those who try to account for his entire life. This is where 'faith' comes in to play. It's part of the mysticism for which 'religious faith' is built upon and enforces.

It's believed that mankind cannot be self-guided, EVER! And, that's simply not true. Because, of what we have learned about the human body and it's mind.

We have a consciousness that tells us we are alive.
We have a conscience that tells us difference of right and wrong.
We have a subsconscious that gives us a sense of life, the ability to understand the simplistic nature of life.

The human race doesn't need to answer of 'higher' power, when one individual has the above three and lives honestly by all of them.

That's what's most important. Self-guide, Self-account and Self-responsibility.

Nothing more.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Having been raised in an ultra conservative religious family, I'm still glad for the heritage and culture I was given. But my experiences have lead me to believe more similarly as you, Cags. I just think the universal railroad runs differently than I was taught, and I think the first person to save our sorry selves is looking at us in the mirror. I agree with you.

I also add that I have learned that there is a force, or power or whatever you want to call it, that is beyond me. I don't understand it and I don't really think it's God, because I don't think God as people are taught in religion exists. There is just something beyond ourselves that is greater than us, I believe. It's more like the eastern mysticism and gnostic beliefs, I guess. But that's just my take and I'm sure there are many who will adamantly disagree with me.

1. 82
Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

You know, many people walk around with a sense of life. This is a feeling they can not explain, but they can sense it, because it is part of their awareness/consciousness.

You can feel something deep in yourself, a power that you can't see. That power isn't a 'god', it's the true power and potential of each person, which they are unable to tap into, because their life is skewed by baseless false truths about their life.

To understand oneself- you have to know everything about yourself and your own individual reason or purpose for living, and love yourself, so you can love others. By doing for other people, is where spirituality arises from.

Albert Einstein, the smartest man, to ever realize human existence, believed that mankind's utlimate power rests inside their brain. This is the NEXT step in human evolution- to expand the capacity and usage of their mind.

8. 92
habeeposted 11 years ago

I believe "the Fall" happened. I believe Jesus was beaten, tortured, and nailed to a cross.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

From what I've read of scholarly stuff, the life of Christ is uncontestable. Details and legends regarding his life may come into question as to whether or not they can actually be proved. But again, this is all academic argument. Hence, for all believers, faith enters to bridge any gap. And there just simply isn't enough evidence to prove one way or another so it does remain an individual thing.

Faith in and of itself isn't bad. It facilitates much good. Faith in superstitions and lies, however, only perpetuate oppression of the human spirit. And to discern is much, much harder, as we know. Hence all the arguments.

2. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Why would Jesus quotes Genesis if it didn't happen? How do we know Jesus spoke in parables? Because it said he spoke in them. Genesis on the other hand isn't symbolic whatsoever look at Genesis 5. Why is all that in there?
Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."

9. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years ago

And I disagree about the Bible being either entirely literal or all contestable fables. I don't even know of anyone in academic circles who honestly believes that, at least none in Biblical and literary scholarship. It is impossible to accurately interpret any anthology containing a variety of literary genres by taking the entire book literally or figuratively.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Then I think there is a reality shift here. It means some or most of the Bible can be interpreted literally, but other portions are mixed in symbolism and story telling to drive home key points. Doesn't this pollute the pure Word for the believer? Doesn't make a gray area for what really happened and didn't? Miracles and even the atonement itself now comes into question by your description. How can a believer be sure of any of it, except to say they believe in faith. And what if faith is in something that really didn't happen?

With all due respect, it's not adding up for me.

2. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I agree with you.  The idea that the Bible is either all literal or figurative commentary is absurd.  The teachings however through the parables and stories are what give it a palpable medium to teach those less informed and looking for relatable and familiar tone to understand.  As the spirit moves you later in life, you can understand more of what the meanings are to you.  Is the crusifiction just a story or fable.  Obviously not.  Did the moneychangers witness Jesus' wrath. Absolutely.  So there is no question that some is literal and some is figurative.  Try to explain the real meaning of the crusifiction to a child or the perversion of the temple and see where you get.  But if you read the story about the ark a child will understand that God wished to save all the innocent from the world by affording them a place on the ark while he ridded the world of evil.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

But my only point is that what you describe certainly doesn't solve the problem of what is actually historical fact and what is story telling for the sake of teaching. That's the root of what I'm saying. And if you can't discern fact from storytelling, then how accurate are faith and beliefs? To me, it just doesn't all add up yet.

That said, I understand others will heartily disagree with me. That's fine.

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

The point that this a question as to whether or not you can discern fact from storytelling is valid.  This is especially hard when reading various translations of the bible and the importance of what each author is describing.  The Nicean Conference to compile the Bible by christian scholars and authorized by Constantine was based on finding plausible accounts of the life of Jesus and the birth of the faith.  It was also compiled to quell the unrest of the era while Romes emporor converted to Christianity.  I cannot defend how they made this up nor can I account for the diminishing role women were to take or some of the foundations of the various books.  One that comes to mind is Revelations that was a dream or vision by an unknown author but believed to be one of the Johns.
The question of knowing the difference between fact and fiction lies on your readiness to understand.  To gain this kind of readiness you have to believe very little but seek very stringently for yourself.  I won't say there weren't any miracles or that the Red Sea parted under the circumstances that were explained, but the people who were doing the witnessing understood very little of science and the result is their facts based on unknown science at the time.

To gain any understanding between fact and fiction in the Bible you must believe in yourself to find the truth acceptable to you.  In the process you may encounter a visit by the Holy Spirit which will help in your belief and guide you.  Don't worry, you will really know when this happens.

I know you wanted an easy explanation of the way to discern fact and fiction but there is no easy way. Each are drawn as they believe or turn away when it is not their time.  I hope that didn't sound condesending as it is not my intent.

1. 72
Daniel Carterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

These are excellent points, and I agree.
I grew up a believer. I've had a few unexplainable, miraculous experiences. I've had what I thought to be some visitations of the Holy Spirit where my mind became incredibly clear and I *knew* what to do without question and doubt. I was actually very influential in the church I attended.

However, life has a way of changing us. There were things that happened that shook me to the core, throughout my life, starting in childhood. There were things in life, marriage and family life that happened, and one cannot be unchanged by the type of experiences I had. I came away with absolutely nothing. I had to find out who I am in the universe and what my purpose in drawing one more breath is about. There simply were no answers. There was no plan. There was absolutely nothing in all the promises the religion preached to me for decades. So I had to find my own way.

What resulted was that at the very bottom of all this nightmare and depression, I went into the silence to see what or who might be there. In the silence I found stillness and in the stillness I found I was not alone. However, I disposed of everything I was taught and told to believe because of the impressions and feelings I gained then.

My experience leads me to believe only one thing: there is something greater than ourselves in the universe. It is in no way what I was taught to be God. I'm not sure God exists. I don't know why at times there is a power and a clarity that almost anyone of us can tap into, and at other times we seem completely abandoned. But my experiences were very clear, and have changed me. I feel more connected to in the universe, but I only have more questions now than I have ever had. So I've had to take a very pragmatic approach and usually try to get facts first.

Well, that was a rant. Basically, I will never mean any disrespect to another's beliefs, but because of my experiences, I will probably always appear to be a nonbeliever.

That said, there are excellent point made by you and many others, and I appreciate that.

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I absolutely applaude you for your lifes experience and a truly remarkable journey and for your sharing them. I feel very much the same way and while my life experiences are different they have dictated the same awareness that you feel.  By referencing the Bible I make no declaration as to Christianity as the way for everybody.  I believe in many religions and find the similarities astounding.  The reading of the Bible has a new meaning when I lost the dogmas and traditions and opened up a new understanding of spirituality.

While I can't explain God I am okay with that. Do I feel God in my life. Absolutely.  Do I have to make anyone else understand that. Absolutely not.  But it is refreshing to talk with someone like you and sharing without judgement our beliefs.

10. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years ago

But if your self requires purification, how are you going to find that within yourself?

1. 82
Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Purification is a myth, purported by the religious community, so to make people feel like dirt and unworthy. It goes on the assumption you're guilty and filthy, scum, if you don't.

If a student of religion goes thru the purification process, they oppress the nature of their own life.

It's self-defeating and baseless. It's about cleansing oneself of 'sin'. Sin is a myth by the religious commmunity also, so as to control an individual's train of thought.

It's hurtful to the core of an individual's nature.

1. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Then why did you make a reference to being pure of heart, if purification is a myth? Or are you naive enough to think everyone is pure?

11. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years ago

What a civilized convo! Thanks you guys, I'm gotta go, but thanks.

12. 92
habeeposted 11 years ago

Truth beat me to what I was going to say: I enjoy having this civil conversation/debate.

13. 68
goldenpathposted 11 years ago

The dinosaurs were not there at the time.  They existed long before Noah and in a very different setting than the modern academia teaches.

I commend you on an honest question.

14. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years ago

If Christians believe that this event really happened, then they have to believe in evolution because there is NO WAY every species of animal was put on this boat.

Think about it, we are discovering 23 new species of life EVERY DAY!

Again, these animals evolved from whatever animals were on this boat.

But, as I've stated a million times before, evolution doesn't disprove religion

Just making my point!

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Tim,

The bible clearly says kind, Dog kind, Cat kind, Horse kind etc.

You have to also remember God called only air breathing animals on the ark. Water creatures would have no need to be on the ark. And once the water receded they migrated then adapted to their new surroundings.

Insects wouldn’t have gone on the ark(insects breathe through  their skin and could barrow underground.)

And Noah would have taken young adults and babies on the ark( they sleep a lot, and eat less and could reproduce a lot longer)

And since we know animals can sense disaster. They obviously sensing doom God lead them to the ark for their survival.

When you do the math considering the size of the ark animals took up about 46% of the ark and Noah and his family, cargo, food there was plenty of room for everything. (AIG)

According to the latest gov stats released approx 50 species go extinct every day.

Speciation is merely adaptation, genetic recombination, transduction, mutations, transformation, vital enzyme exchange through plasmids, and natural selection within the kind which does not and cannot prove molecule to man evolution.

Considering nearly ALL cultures have a flood account it’s safe to conclude it happened.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I seriously can't believe that normal, sane people believe this could've happened!

How did the animals from other continents that Noah didn't even know existed, cross the oceans to get to his boat??  haha

This is so illogical people.  I'm not trying to be mean but you really have to think about this with logic and common sense.

And this would be the 2nd time that the bible would have Earth procreated by people inbreeding.  We know that can't be possible to this magnitude.

This is just a story.

And there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of a worldwide flood.  If you have found some, please provide a link from a non-biblical or religious source.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Tim who are trying to convince me or you?

You can't set the terms for an exchange here I will provide sources from creation scientist also. You have preconceived bias against God and the bible so that automatically short-circuits any change of you looking at the facts, but I will list anyway to help those who aren’t so bias.

As for interbreeding evolution presupposes beastiality and interbreeding.(think about it)

The earth was once one large land mass so the animals were generally in one large area. The water from Noah’s flood came from gushing through the plates causing movement of the tectonic plates and caused continual continental(were still drifting btw) drift.

pw2. netcom. com/~horse /flood .html

www. ancient days.net/ universalflood. htm

More on tectonics
www. answersingenesis. org /media/video /on demand /global-tectonic s/global-tectonics

ldolphin.org/ cisflood. html

Even the evolutionists site cannot deny the overwhelming universal flood accounts from early cultures all over the world.

www. talkorigins.org /faqs/flood- myths.html

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Pangea happened around 250 million years ago.  Man did not exist during that time so all the continents weren't together for Noah to "gather" the animals.

Seriously, you are talking about a family who somehow built a massive boat to collect millions of animals and FLOATED for 40 days with help from a wizard in the sky.

Don't you see how completely mythical this sounds?  This compares to the Greek God stories.  There is no difference yet you probably don't believe in Greek Gods, right?

What is the difference?

There is no way this really took place.  Christians that believe the moral of the story are way more logical than the Christians who really believe this took place.

Next, you are going to tell me that someone parted the Red Sea and that is fact as well.

These are just moral stories buddy.

1. 97
Susana Sposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Well, I was just gonna say about the same as you Tim - on all points! Pangaea had already seperated long before by the time of humans. We've only been around 100K - 200K years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evol … mo_sapiens

I think there could well have been a large flood some time in human history, but the existence of a flood is not inextricably linked to Noah and a big boat. That is quite clearly symbolic!

That was obvious to me when I was about 7 yrs old, as were the stories of Adam and Eve and the earth being created in 7 days. They are myths!

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

When you Darwinist try to take leap of faith with “Give it enough time you turn anything to anything look at these bones” that where it stops being science and becomes a pseudoscientific religion. Bones cannot talk. The fact is fossils exist, but we have different interpretations of that fact. All of the skeleton in the museum are simply different races of people or different types of apes they put them in order to fool you, but there is no evolution occurring. And a lot of the fossils are things we can still see today with absolutely no change. If any fossls prvide proof of rapid burial of animals which is explained by Noah's flood. Why would you believe in something wrought with such fraud over 15 widely publicized frauds and some not so publicized. Peppered moths and other were in my textbook even after they were proven lies. Have you noticed most of your “proofs” are simply drawing by evolutionist of what they want to see? Is that science or imagining art class?

www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i8f.htm

1. 97
Susana Sposted 11 years agoin reply to this

My own standpoint is that evolution and the existence of God are not on opposing sides - they can happily co-exist. I don't think science is a fraud, except the pseudo science that is being preached by fundamentalist christians.

This science/God battle has been played to death in previous centuries.....remember Galileo? Let's move on!

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Galileo was a Christians(YEC) and he used the bible to supports his claim. That’s why we know he was speaking truth. Sure molecule to man evolution can exist with a god, but it's not the god of the bible(in my opinion). I never stated science is fraud, but molecule to man evolution is a fraud(Lucy, Ida, Vestigial Organs, Ape-men drawings, Haeckel’s Forged Embryo Drawings, Geologic column. etc) And the frauds are still is most textbooks today as proof does that make sense to you? You have to take bigger leap of faith with “Give it enough time you turn anything to anything look at these bones”(bones cannot talk can you say voo doo ) that where it stops being science and becomes a pseudoscientific religion.

2. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Thank you for showing me and anyone who following this that you didn't read the my first response, due to your blinding bias. (KIND)

They aren't links just remove the spaces and place in the search bar.

I don't have faith in your timegod!

To compare Greek gods to the God of the bible is pretty absurd even for you(btw you forgot to mention santa )

For those Christians who compromise on God's Word to appease man be my guest.

Let's Compare:
Evolutionism- Long ago and far away nothing exploded and everything came to be earth(0+0=1) was a hot molten planet and with millions of years of rained cooled down and created we became soup(proteins can’t form in water) and a miracle occurred that life came from non-life(never observed we have no proof of this and we can’t duplicate it but please have faith). A fish-like creator came out of a lake with lungs or gill(the jury is still out) had to find something to eat and had to learn how to see eat, smell, and mate(again no proof) and the princess kissed the frog and the frog through billions of years(using flawed dating methods, with numerous faulty assumptions) became man. That’s logical? I don’t have that much faith.

Creation- IN THE BEGINING GOD CREATED. Proof: The Holy Bible and everything we see, and observable science.
I'll stick with The Creation Account.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Dude, that link didnt' work either.

Btw, the Universe didn't explode from nothing.  Learn your facts.  The Universe was always there, just in a smaller space.  The Big Bang created the rapid expansion of the Universe which allowed the heavier elements to be created.  This process took 17 billion years, not a snap of a finger from a wizard in the sky.

17 billion years of evolution makes way more sense than being created by a mythical creature.

I'll stick with logic and common sense over a magical being or mythical creature in the sky that decides everyones fate.

And there is no difference between Greek gods and your god.  They both have mystical powers and incredible, moral stories that shouldn't be taken at face value...only moral value.

You have to realize that you are even a small minority amongst Christians.  Most Christians don't believe in the Ark but the moral story.  You are a minority in your own religious beliefs.

I'm sure you believe in Abraham's wife turning into a pillar of salt and the parting of the Red Sea.  Again, you are the minority.  These are just moral stories.  Anyone with common sense and logic know this.  I don't mean to put you down because that's not my intention.  I just want you to see the bigger picture.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

There are several different theories about universe beginning . Yours is the least likely
The Universe cannot be eternal because the universe in winding down, thus there must have been a starting point. Read Einstein’s theory of relativity.

What is the evidence that the universe increased in its order and complexity after the big bang in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics?

The universe is experiencing heat death as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. So how do evolutionists justify proposing that energy always existed and had no beginning?

The Law of Cause and effect concludes that since the universe is not eternal and that we would never come to be if there was an infinite regression of causes. That’s means there must be an uncaused cause.

We live in the UNIVERSE.

UNI = SINGLE
VERSE = SPOKEN PHRASE

And God said, “Let there be"....

We live in a single spoken word of God.

No snapping required.

The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept. Has proven that life from zero in impossible since the minimal 397 is needed to sustain life. For evolution to be true you must start from zero, which have been proven impossible.

I think it’s more interpretation of facts not faith over logic.
The fact is the universe exist, and incredibly complex, and extremely fine tuned(1 cell is as complex as New York City)

You can either use logic to say nothing created everything(0+0=1), matter is eternal(disproved) or there is a uncaused caused created everything(now who that God is another matter) either way logic and faith are required.

I’m not calling in to question your knowledge of science, but it seems you’ve been taught what to think not how to think. You need to start doubting your doubts.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

The Universe is expanding faster now than ever before.  I have no idea where you are getting your facts.  The Universe is not "winding down."  lol

If it's easier for you to believe in a mythical being that has always been there and always will be, and not wonder how that is possible, then so be it.

You believe in faith, not logic or common sense which is fine.

As much as you keep trying to say god is logical, it's not.  Nothing in the Bible, besides cities and countries, can be proven.  Nothing.  You can try to say "this and that" means it's true but science has never backed the bible, especially on the wild, mythical stories of the Ark, people turning to salt, Adam & Eve or parting of the Red Sea.

The Bible has been translated countless times by HUMANS who would undoubtedly be biased in their translations.  Yet you put your whole belief in a book that humans wrote and translated.

And the book only dates back 1500 to 2000 years when humankind have been around for 50,000 years or so.  That should be proof enough that it's a man-made book and religion.  Again, I'm not saying it's wrong with the morality.  But to believe the wild and crazy stories and try to tie science into it, is just retarded, frankly.

Again, let's agree to disagree and you have every right to believe in the mythical and supernatural.  I'll stick with facts and science.

2. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

These type of exchanges or arguments are only to prove the validity of the Bible.  Once someone believes the argument you can base further arguments to validate any opinion you wish.  This is what the flaw in teaching a literal translation with an inspirational collection. The belief comes from within and defending all of something absolutely, leaves the student with too many questions and therefore you lose your credibility.

Do not feel bad as this has been a popular technique. For centuries this has led to an inflexible stance that many wars and separations from God take years to repair.

3. 60
ionericeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Can someone tell me where the name cats is found in the bible???  I don’t believe that it’s there as thetruthhurts has indicated.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

You gotta do better than that!

15. 61
ediggityposted 11 years ago

Noah's Ark reconstruction in Netherlands.

"The Ark had the same capacity as more than 500 train boxcars"

http://www.pbase.com/paulthedane/noahs_ark

1. 66
Flightkeeperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Wow, were they able to put two of a kind of everything in there?

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

But will it float?  If you take the size and girth and weight loaded will the superstructure be able to withstand the stress.  I don't know where it was and I am loath to bring it up without a link but there was an engineering study citing the flaws in the design of the ark to be able to remain intact because of the design and materials. Modern ships of this size rely heavily on the exterior shell of steel to work with the inflexible interior structure to have the correct strength.

On the other hand you may make a case that the flexible nature of the Ark was what made it able to shape its way to the waves and stresses that a vessel of this size would surely encounter in a storm.

Maybe you have proven your point with your picture and maybe not based on modern science.  But is the proof of the exsistence of the Ark made the Bible any more credible?  To a non-believer I would have to say no.  To a believer I would say absolutely.  If your argument that the literal belief in the bible is proven, then to who? The non-believer?  A believer needs no more evidence.

I think this argument as to how we all have a take on the Bible is counterproductive if you want to prove faith through the Bible.  The practice of Christianity comes from within and a kind and gentle heart is the best argument for Gods' existence.  An argumentative attitude will win few hearts.

2. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

But could this boat hold over 100 million animals(estimates range from 5 to 100 million species) and Noah and his family, and provisions for forty days and nights or more?  I don't see how it could be possible, mathematically.  And with only a few family members to do the work, who cleaned up the massive amounts of manure? There was just not enough manpower to make this plausible.  How does this all make sense, without abandoning common sense?  Really!

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Does the moral of the story hinge on the factual depiction of the story for you?

2. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Unfortunately, faith isn't based on common sense or logic.

And how did all the animals on other continents, that Noah didn't even know existed, cross the oceans to get on the Ark?

It's just a story but some people believe this existed. It's pretty crazy honestly haha

These same people have to believe in the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, UFOs (which I actually do believe), Angels, Fairies, Unicorns, vampires, werewolfs, elves, and demons.  You can't believe in a story like this and not believe in all the other fictional stuff

3. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

The bible clearly says kind, Dog kind, Cat kind, Horse kind etc.

You have to also remember God called only air breathing animals on the ark. Water creatures would have no need to be on the ark. And once the water receded they migrated then adapted to their new surroundings.

Insects wouldn’t have gone on the ark(insects breathe through  their skin and could barrow underground.)

And Noah would have taken young adults and babies on the ark( they sleep a lot, and eat less and could reproduce a lot longer)

And since we know animals can sense disaster. They obviously sensing doom God lead them to the ark for their survival.

When you do the math considering the size of the ark animals took up about 46% of the ark and Noah and his family, cargo, food there was plenty of room for everything. (AIG)

Speciation is merely adaptation, genetic recombination, transduction, mutations, transformation, vital enzyme exchange through plasmids, and natural selection within the kind.

1. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I'm still skeptical, because I found more flaws!

Why did God spare the creatures who lived in the water?  Weren't they just as guilty as the land animals that he so callously, and unmercifully drowned, along with humans.  Where is the equity or justice?  The simple answer to me is that this is a brazen lie!  And not even a well thought out lie.  I suppose you either have a sensible answer, or this debate will become circular.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yeah, there is no way the salt level of the water would've been stable enough to keep all the ocean creatures alive...plus all the fresh water creatures would die because it was too salty.

I wish people would just accept this is a moral story.  It's comical to believe this really happened

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Oh wait....I bet Noah had giant tanks with the correct chemical balances to keep each species alive.  That must be it!  lol

Do any of you have salt water fish at home in a fish tank??  My parents do and it costs so much money to keep their water chemical levels perfect AND temperature to keep them alive.

No way a wooden boat with no technology could've done this people!!!  lol

2. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

It's called Adaptation which has been observed in current sea creatures. Come on this is 1st grade stuff.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Any scientist would tell you that creatures can't adapt overnight.  Not even in "40 days or 40 nights."

You even know this never happened but it was a story of morality.  You are just egging me on with these ridiculous claims

2. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Plus, any 1st grader would have logic to tell you this is an illogical story  haha

It was actually an episode on Family Guy.  Christians were burning books and one book was "Logic For First Graders."  haha

It was quite funny

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Great retort.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

It was pretty funny!  It is a very popular show too  haha

2. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Animals do not have conscience, they are animals! They do not know stealing and lying and killing is wrong, we do.

1. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

You did not answer the question.  Why did the land animals have to suffer the same horrible drowning death that the humans of the time suffered-under your "merciful and "loving" god, but the sea creatures didn't?  The land animals were not human.  God was mad at humans, so why did he do such a callous thing to these innocent creatures? That is OUTRAGEOUS and despicable!!!

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Keep in mind I'm not answering you per say this is for the not so closed minded folks. God created the earth that means he owns it and everything in it. But He always give a way to escape his wrath(Noah, Lot, and finally Himself through Jesus).

Animals are innocent? They're animals! You're trying to use personification and emotions which means you're getting desperate. Good! How do you judge the killing of animals to be wrong?

If evolution was true death and killing of animals is perfectly normal so how can you judge the flood to be despicable and wrong, those words mean nothing coming from you. You're calling upon some supernatural cause for your objections to the death of these animals who do you think set those objections in your soul?

Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repents me that I have made them." Remember the fig tree?

1. 77
getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

After this exchange with you, I have to say that you seem like an intelligent individual, but I can't wrap my brain around your "reasoning."   Your conclusions are based on faith, and you seem to grasp for anything to prove the lie that you and I were fed, from the cradle to now, is somehow true.  You research and reference many sources, but you fail to see common sense when it comes to faith.  I'm sure you use better logic in your life outside of religion.

In Conclusion:  Based on our conversation, you have not removed the doubt from my mind that the story of Noah's Ark is factual--based on the fact that I have seen no god, no flood, no Ark capable of the feat, and the fact that humans are compulsive liars.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Like I said before my intent was not to convinced you or any other skeptic I shared exchanges with today, but to clear up the common misconceptions of Noah's ark, the flood and the bible as a whole, and back it up with evidence. And I did that.
It might surprise you that even though I knew of God my entire life I didn't become a Christian until this year. So I had to do my homework. My faith is not blind, but rooted in the fact that I have a personal relationship with God. No religion can ever compare with that. Be Well, it’s been fun!

16. 0
Poppa Bluesposted 11 years ago

Hind sight is 20/20! Given that I guess it was logical. One thing is for sure, there weren't any dinos then.

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this
1. 0
Poppa Bluesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yeah quite sure! Don't you think if such animals existed at that time they might have been mentioned in the Bible?

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

The Behemoth-Job 40:15-24

The Leviathan-Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25, 26 and Isaiah 27:1.

tanniyn (dragon) =dinosaur

behemoth= brachiosaurus

Leviathan=kronosaurus

17. 62
Jeramiposted 11 years ago

I have seen programs on TV where architects have studied the design described in the bible.
According to them this would have been the BEST design possible considering the weight disbursement to survive a raging sea.

The most interesting thing about the story is that the arch had no Rutter. The arch had to go along with the flow
(GODS WILL)

1. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Well there you have it. You say tomato.......

18. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years ago

Let's also remember that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.

I think we all know that amount of rain would've have flooded the world.

19. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years ago

Well, there is the matter of something on Mt. Ararat that resembles what could be an ark.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Right and they have been saying it's the Ark for 20 or 30 years now.  Yet, miraculously, no one can find it or say this or that looks like it could be a big boat.

Just like with the other "evidence" in todays world about the Bible, it's all shrouded (pun intended) in mystery

2. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

And you can't have "proof" and "faith" together.  It contradicts each other.  You can never find scientific facts or proof of any religion.  It simply cannot be.

It's an oxymoron.  Religions will always be based on faith with no scientific proof or any proof at all.  You just have to "believe" in it.

1. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years agoin reply to this

That is absolutely not true.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Think about it...they reason why there are so many different religions out there is because there is no 100% proof any of them exist.  They are ALL based on FAITH.  A belief structure.

No religion will ever be able to prove they are right.  None.

Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof" according to Dictionary.com.

You cannot have faith and proof.  Once a faith or theory is proven, it turns into scientific fact.  It is no longer a theory or faith-based belief.  It's a belief based on fact.

3. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

There's more than that. Be Well.

20. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years ago

And all religions are on the right track.  They all have the same 10 basic laws but some religions have a lot more than the 10.

But religion is a branch of the spiritual tree.  The spiritual world is far greater than any religion.  All religion make up branches of the greater spiritual world.

I think people just get hung up on the religion they were raised on and forget the bigger picture.

21. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years ago

Tim, your dictionary.com definition is incomplete. Faith is also defined as trust, which does require proof.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Its not my definition  haha  It's a universal definition!

And trust does not require proof at all.  How many kidnapped people trust in their capture's when they think their capture is doing what is best for them?

Or how many people trust in a friend who ends up turning their back on them?

Trust doest not equal truth.  Trust is based of FAITH which requires no proof.

1. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Misplaced trust requires no proof. Real trust can be gained or lost with proof of one's trustworthiness or lack thereof.

1. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

You are creating your own definition.  But the universal definition says one thing.  You can redefine whatever you like to fit in your religion.  I'm fine with that.

But I will tell you that your way is not the universal way.

2. 70
TimTurnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Seriously, find a dictionary in your house and look up "faith."  It cannot be based on proof whatsoever.  It is an oxymoron.  It's like saying the sun is hot and cold.  Just cannot be.

22. 60
ionericeposted 11 years ago

The Reformed Jews have published a Torah call the Etz Hayim in which they tell us in the foot notes where their writers borrowed the stories from.  In others words they have admitted that the stories in Genesis are not true.
No Noah and the Flood
No Tower of Babel
No Exodus

1. 0
thetruthhurts2009posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Keep trying.

2. 61
Valerie Fposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Okay, so we've missed a step in logic here. Since when is an admission that writers have borrowed stories from other sources the same as an admission that the stories in Genesis are not true?

1. 62
Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

And what gives one set of writers all credibility and the original writers none. selective believability?

2. 75
rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

The Bible is a compilation of many compositions and accounts of events that have been bound in one book. Where they came from is a mute point.  The conviening of the first Ecumenical Council formulated which books and holy writings would appear as doctrine that formed the Bible.  This was the basis they began. The stories and relating of history was included from many different writings most of which was from the Torah or Hebrew Bible.  A continuity from the Hebrew prophesies was the reasons for including it.  These ancient writings came from all over.  Did they have validity as to their literal accounts of the day.  Only you can tell through your intellect or logical musings.  If that is unacceptable then it is by faith you believe them to be literally true.  Given the history of the way the Bible was compiled you have to believe what you believe.  I prefer to accept the message rather than the physical proof.  Less messy and always gratifying.

3. 60
ionericeposted 11 years agoin reply to this