what if it is Noah's Ark

Quote from Turok:

Shoe:
>I simply trust God that this situation was
>exactly as it says

No Shoe, you do not trust it "exactly as it says". You have demonstrated this so clearly in your posts on this thread that I am amazed that you can now make that statement with a hint of seriousness.

You trust it only by proclaiming some "onlys", "everys", "alls" and "wholes" as valid and others as invalid. Hardly "exactly as it says".

JB
More...

I strongly disagree. The most literal interpretation is simply not always correct. That is a very bad assumption for any ancient text. I have provided examples of that and you guys seem to ignore them from my standpoint. I'm not trying to be disagreeable here, but I can't seem to get my point across...That's okay - let's just move on.

And thank you for not typing in type 54 font by the way...
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I will, of course, choose the one that matches both science and what I know of God.
More...

and therein lies the problem: the scriptures are Jewish texts and it is a fundamental tenet of Judaism that the mind of G-d is unknowable. which is exactly why Judaism dispensed with belief and dogma in the first place - since The Truth isn't knowable, believe what you want, live this life to its potential. the stories are there for you to extract value from - how, and what value, is up to you, the recipient.

somehow this all got inverted when c'ianity co-opted the texts and belief became more important than action - which is ironic beyond belief since this is exactly what Jesus taught *against*.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

The problem, stu, is that there are two possible interpretations of the text and you are completely ignoring mine as if it did not exist. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion and yes I admit your interpretation is one possible interpretation. But the fact is that my interpretation is possible as well.

I agree with Turok's post and approach - see above. If we keep going with this, we'll end up in a WWF match over ancient Hebrew which really isn't germaine to the the discussion anyway...
More...
You see shoe, I have a bad habit of reading what you actually say.
That is why I respond in answer to the things you actually say

And your response to that is.... lets not talk about it !!!

I agree with you, there is little point in bringing up the Hebrew text as the story behind it which it describes , is absurd. The whole of Genesis is absurd. The bible is absurd.

But it was YOU who brought up the Hebrew and YOU who based your argument for local flooding in Genesis upon it, not me !

You are wrong in what you said on what was your main argument. The Hebrew text confirms the English translation. Your Local flooding argument fails on the evidence you brought to support it.

Now that should ring some alarm bells. The following should be a kind of shoeshine thinks bubble....'Hellooo my argument failed... therefore perhaps I have this thing wrong.'

But no, you want to say Hebrew wasn't germaine to the the discussion anyway,, and this is supposed to what ? help your understanding of what??
 
Quote from damir00:

and therein lies your problem: the scriptures are Jewish texts and it is a fundamental tenet of Judaism that the mind of G-d is unknowable. which is exactly why Judaism dispensed with belief and dogma in the first place - since The Truth isn't knowable, believe what you want, live this life to its potential. the stories are there for you to extract value from - how, and what value, is up to you, the recipient.

somehow this all got inverted when c'ianity co-opted the texts and belief became more important than action - which is ironic beyond belief since this is exactly what Jesus taught *against*.
More...


You seem to have a strong knowledge of this stuff - can you tell me WHY the jews have been persecuted over the centuries -

Thanks
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

I need to show YOU how faith has legitimacy?
More...
Yes you do.
otherwise BOTH of these are legitimate by themselves and of themselves...
Faith in God is truth
Faith in No God is truth.

Now obviously, even for the most limited intellect, of which you like to remind everyone they have up to some point of faith or other, then both of these cannot be true.

Faith needs a legitamacy, to determine which is true (if either).
You say it doesn't ? then according to you, both are legitimate. Both are of equal validity.
 
Quote from damir00:

and therein lies the problem: the scriptures are Jewish texts and it is a fundamental tenet of Judaism that the mind of G-d is unknowable. which is exactly why Judaism dispensed with belief and dogma in the first place - since The Truth isn't knowable, believe what you want, live this life to its potential. the stories are there for you to extract value from - how, and what value, is up to you, the recipient.

somehow this all got inverted when c'ianity co-opted the texts and belief became more important than action - which is ironic beyond belief since this is exactly what Jesus taught *against*.
More...
I take it you cannot bring yourself to say the word God so I shall respectfully acknowledge that.

If the mind of God is unknowable, how do you know God has a mind ??
 
Quote from stu:
More...

Yes you do.
otherwise BOTH of these are legitimate by themselves and of themselves...
Faith in God is truth
Faith in No God is truth.



Now obviously, even for the most limited intellect, of which you like to remind everyone they have up to some point of faith or other, then both of these cannot be true.

Why can't both be true?

The existence of God is independent of man's faith, in the same way the existence of the universe is independent of man's faith.

That you have no faith in God doesn't make God false. It makes your faith false if God exists.

Faith needs a legitimacy, to determine which is true (if either).
You say it doesn't ? then according to you, both are legitimate. Both are of equal validity.

Both are equally valid paths. They lead to different experiences.

You have the truthful experience of a failed theist. Yet, you failed none the less to maintain your faith. You trusted the intellect at a time of doubt, rather than doubting the doubt and proceeding on the path of faith.

Faith itself needs no more legitimacy than the intellect, as the intellect is constantly legitimizing things in a circular manner without certainty that the tool of the intellect itself is not false.

You are talking about the tools of the human experience, where the proof of the pudding ultimately comes in the eating.

What is ultimately true, independent of human experience is beyond the reach of human experience, until such time that the human mind becomes ultimate itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top