Is it getting wet in here?

To the category of “posts I wish I had written,” I’d like to add What If God Threw a Flood and No One Came from Chris Massey over at Cognitive Discopants. (I also wish I had come up with that name, although even my wife doesn’t want to see me in shiny pants.)

Massey starts by quoting David Wright of Answers in Genesis setting the date of the Deluge at 2348 BC. He then provides some basic ancient history, so that we can see just what the rest of the world was doing during or soon after being drown:

It must have come as a real shock to Noah and his children when, in 2334 BC – only 14 years after the flood – Sargon the Great began establishing the powerful Akkadian empire. [...] “Barefoot and pregnant” doesn’t begin to describe the work involved in repopulating the planet at the pace necessary to give Sargon armies to fight and people to rule.

[...]

Down in Egypt, the United Kingdom established by Menes circa. 3000 BC was humming along nicely. By the time of Noah’s flood, the Egyptians were just wrapping up their 5th dynasty. Pharaoh Unas was, no doubt, quite perturbed to see his empire underwater, especially since he was in the middle of building a pyramid complex at Saqqara, which you can visit to this day.

It reminds me a bit of the old Onion article: Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World:

Members of the earth’s earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

[...]

“I do not understand,” reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. “A booming voice is saying, ‘Let there be light,’ but there is already light. It is saying, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass,’ but I am already standing on grass.”

“Everything is here already,” the pictograph continues. “We do not need more stars.”

  • FO

    The Onion FTW!!!

    And this is why most creationists go for the more cautious 10k years.

    But then again, we all know that Faith is the virtue that protects people from reality.

  • http://www.control-z.com Craig Duckett

    A Creationist wouldn’t know a etiological, etymological, ethnological, cult, or geological saga if it bit him or her in the buttocks, or Occam’s Razor if it was slicing his or her throat. Nope, better to believe in the orchestrations of the All Powerful OZ only because of the say-so of a book rather than believe the book was composed as an etiological attempt to briefly explain the way or reason things are a la Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories (“How the Leopard Got His Spots”, “How the Alphabet Was Made”, etc).

  • John C

    How could a literal, historical ‘flood’ of literal waters ever bring about the result that Peter speaks of in 1st Peter 3:20&21 saying it resulted in a ‘right (correct/good/true) conscience (understanding/relation) toward God’? And who were these ‘eight persons’ that survived and why the number eight and why does the above-referenced verse end with ‘the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ and what in the world does that have to do with a literal flood??!! SO.MUCH.MORE.

    • trj

      You’re asking atheists why one part of the Bible doesn’t fit with another?

      • John C

        No, I’m telling you the flood story is (obviously) about MORE than a literal flood since you insist on ‘seeing’ things from a very narrow and false perspective, ie a literal one based on your reasoning faculties alone (which you worship and were intended for, are good for certain things, ie navigating traffic, balancing checkbooks, etc but were never intended to be the means by which one comprehends the mysteries of God). Never.

        • Ty

          Let John explain biblical numerology to you. Then it will all make sense once you’ve had a nervous breakdown and started hearing voices. That’s essential to the process as well.

        • trj

          I realize that’s what you wanted to say, and my question was a rhetorical one. My point is simply that when different parts of the Bible don’t match you basically have two options:

          a) Try to force the pieces together using tortuous interpretations and out-of-hand dismissal of any conflicting reasoning,

          b) Realize that the Bible is largely a bunch of fables and amended chronicles which will never be fully compatible despite having been redacted to fit each other.

          You go for option a, I go for option b. My explanation is by far the simplest and easiest to support.

        • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

          So if the flood story is about more than the literal flood, do you maintain that the literal flood still happened?

          • John C

            I don’t know, John, not trying to be evasive here, honestly I don’t know. Here’s what I’m saying: Whether or not there was a literal flood doesn’t really matter to me as much since the spiritual truth behind the story…is the real story, do you see?

            And the only way to know the true meanings of the seemingly preposterous stories in the Bible that the natural mind of man (quite naturally) calls foolishness…is to know its Author and His (true) nature, heart for mankind, etc. He is the One who ‘separates the light from the darkness’ (Gen 1:3), the ‘literal letter from the Spirit-intention’ of the word.

            So when I say things like ‘there’s more here than meets the (literal) eye, (the ‘I’), I mean just that and occasionally (try) share things like I did this morning from Peter’s letter to make my ‘His point’, ha. All my best sir.

            Luke 8:10

            • John C

              Ok, I admit I’m having an ‘active’ UF day but what can I say, I love you guys and I’m not nearly as ‘active’ these days as I used to be at my peak (ask around, ha) so here’s a song from me to my unbelieving friends at UF today, hope you like it, and no, its not ‘Christian’ its just an old fav of mine…and perhaps of some of you as well cuz…Van is the man!

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDZzf4ragg

            • dmantis

              “…is to know its Author and His (true) nature, heart for mankind, etc.”

              Was the Bible literally written by God himself? Or was it merely inspired by God and given by some mysterious force (inspiration) for a human to actually do the writing?

            • Thin-ice

              John C: why in the world would God put “seemingly preposterous stories” in his “book” if they weren’t qualified as allegorical at the beginning of the story?? Why in the world would He give no clue as to which stories were real history and which were weren’t? Why leave it up to us humans to decide? Is your criteria, that if the story is sufficiently outlandish or conflicting with real archeology/science, then it must be allegorical?

              Well, with that approach, you’ve got such a squishy book that it will absorb any critical blow it receives. Must be comforting!

            • John C

              Dmantis…2nd Timothy 3:16 (composed by the hand of Paul to Timothy) states that ‘all scripture is inspired by God’. This means yes, God, Who IS Spirit, (John 4:24) is the Source-Author-Originator and ‘holy men of God spake (and wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2Pet 1:20-21).

              But God (Spirit), contrary to popular ‘religious’ teaching does not live up in the sky somewhere, in the ‘sweet bye and bye’ but His true intended habitation (dwelling place) is…us (Rev 21:3., 1st Cor 3:16, Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24). The truth about Him is nothing like the religious types have told us, thankfully.

            • John C

              Thin ice…He conceals ‘things’ from you because He wants you to know Him. Then, when we’ve set our hearts fully on Him (like Caleb, who had a ‘different spirit’ and whom Joshua, a type and foreshadowing of Yeshua-Jesus-to come, gave the land of ‘Hebron’ to in Joshua 14:14 meaning ‘joined together as one’, ie union with God for ‘he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him’, 1st Cor 6:17) then He opens up the mysteries of His kingdom to us since ‘its your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom’ (Luke 12:32). So Him first, then the ‘things’ of the kingdom, ie the mysteries, seeing into the truth of the preposterous-seeming biblical stories, etc.

            • dmantis

              John C,
              Then if it is merely inspired to be written by human hands, those humans could have made typos/dictation errors here and there because they are not perfect. Those same typos/dictation errors could have then been translated into the many other languages of the early bibles and still others added to it by non-perfect humans.

              Obviously, some of these books, sayings, prophecies could have sprouted disagreements leading to schizms of the believing community. Interpretation is not consistent. All based on numerous layers of typos/dictation errors.

              Furthermore, your interpretation is based heavily on your particlular denomination’s interpretation. That intepretation could have been translated with the intent to conform to that denomination thus white-washing any disagreeable elements.

              In addition, your ‘view’ or ‘Truth’ is based on your social, economic and moral environment grounded in the Western Judeo-Christian traditions. Even this tradition is in disagreement.

              So why should I take your selective interpretation “to know its Author and His (true) nature” as some objective ‘Truth’?

            • John C

              Dmantis,

              First, I don’t have any particular ‘denomination’ as you say (there’s an example of a default religious association, albeit subtly, do you see this friend? Jesus and ‘religion’ in its culturally understood context, don’t mutually co-exist in stride with one another, actually quite the opposite, have you ever read the NT and Jesus’ interactions with and words for the ‘religious types’? Nothings changed there.

              Secondly, yes there are errors in translation (Masoretic Text in particular) but what you don’t understand, respectfully intended, is that we don’t (at least not the spiritual, non-religious types) ‘live from’ the Bible, but rather His indwelling life and nature in us (Gal 2:20, Gal 4:19 just for starters). But yes, I do read scripture (obviously) but not for the same ‘reasons’ you may think I do. And when I do, any textual questions or disparities in the various translations are easily satisfied by simply referring to the general, multi-consensus of other established, well-documented renderings if you will, its not a problem at all.

              All my best.

            • John C

              Don’t worry, I promise not to be so ‘active’ today, ha (can’t help it, love you guys big time). The line from that Van Morrison song yesterday, The Bright Side of the Road that goes ‘from the dark end of the street to the bright side of the road, we’ll be lovers once again’ is on my heart this morning for you guys, is Papa’s heart for UF. Yes, that’s His ‘unreasonable’ heart’s desire (de-sire, see the definition of ‘sire’) for UF and ALL of mankind! (Luke 2:10)

              Love you guys.
              Matt 11:17

            • dmantis

              “Jesus and ‘religion’ in its culturally understood context, don’t mutually co-exist in stride with one another”

              Yet, the point I was trying to make, and that you obviously avoided, is that entire words, passages and books have been altered to conform to particular viewpoints and interpretations.

              This has been done numerous times for numerous denominations all to make Jesus into what they want him to be.

              “have you ever read the NT and Jesus’ interactions with and words for the ‘religious types’? Nothings changed there.”

              Yes, numerous times in many different translations. Unfortunately, you are dead wrong. Things have changed numerous times for the ‘spirtitual types’.

              “‘live from’ the Bible, but rather His indwelling life and nature in us (Gal 2:20, Gal 4:19 just for starters).”

              You state you don’t ‘live from’ the Bible, yet quote it after every sentence? Nevertheless, how is this ‘indwelling’ supposed to happen if everything you have ever been taught or studied about Jesus is based on a book that has such a mountain of bias, errors and inaccuracy as to be little more than an ancient oddity?

              With respect, everything in the Bible you have ever read (unless reading it in the original languages of Greek, Aramaic etc.) is not the true account. Even then it was based on 3rd party accounts or oral tradition.

              You have built your house upon the sand, my friend.

            • John C

              Actually, Dmantis its not my house, its His (Heb 3:6, 1st Cor 3:16) and I didn’t build it, He did (Heb 11:10, Eph 2:22) and the only ‘work’ I did was simply to believe (John 6:29).

              Here’s the problem you have friend and I mean this with all due and sincere respect. You have no idea what the true offer in Christ is really all about, you only ‘think’ you do, but you don’t. Sure, you’ve seen ‘religion’ and want no part of that and wisely so but thankfully that’s not it, not even close. Thankfully. All the best and have an awesome weekend Dmantis.

            • Kodie

              YOU did make the change in yourself from within. You describe it as something else, that is your personal perspective. There is nothing indwelling in you but you. It’s religion that you think otherwise and follow a path of a god. It’s a god of your own personal flavor, of your invention, of your brain. That’s what religion is. It’s not just the church you go to or the mere human in charge of leading the way. It’s the habitual application of nonsense and the results you think you are getting. Whatever results you get are from you. You are your personal religion, and everything you say is inventing a religion for evangelizing all of us to follow you, like idiots.

              In all the time I’ve read anything you have to say, you never change your tune. You think what you think is true – and that’s a religion. Why should anyone follow what you have to say? You never say anything effective or convincing, you put down religion and except yourself from religion, but you are religious. You are extremely religious.

            • dmantis

              With all do respect, John C, you have no idea what I know or don’t know.

              Furthermore, you CANNOT continue to say “with respect” then follow with a patronizing accusation of mystical knowledge that I don’t know or cannot comprehend, and think that your not being a jerk.

              I ask simple questions related to evidence and logic, and I get fluffy retorts amounting to “you don’t know crap”.

            • dmantis

              Also, I find it incredibly conveniant that people like you keep telling others that they don’t pray hard enough, or that they didn’t REALLY open their hearts because they never found comfort, peace or happiness. There is always something wrong with THEM because God was there, they just couldn’t get to him no matter how they tried.

              Beautiful biblical akido you have there.

            • John C

              When have I ever said anything remotely similar to ‘you don’t pray hard enough’? Never since its not about what ‘we’ do but what He has already done (it is finished, John 19:30) and we simply step into that ‘finished work’ by the faith that He supplies (did you know God doesn’t demand faith but supplies it? Rom 12:3) .

              I have only love for you Dmantis and everyone else here and nothing short of that friend. I am not any better than you or anyone else here sir as God is ‘no respecter of persons’ (Acts 10:34) I have only been foolish enough to believe Him, take Him at His word and follow implicitly as a trusting child would his father/Father for the last quarter century now.

              And when I say ‘all my best’ I mean it.

              Sincerely.

            • Kodie

              I think the difficulty in these conversations is that you communicate like a child. It’s not like punching fog at all, it is the “I’m not touching you!” game. Advertising your religion because you believe in it like a child just doesn’t stand up to adult conversations, and you reject the notion of adulthood, so why do you think you still belong here? So you can wear people down and they pat you on the head like the simpleton you are. It’s very kind of you to grace us with your presence out of love and kindness and thoughtfulness, and YES, I am being sarcastic.

            • Sunny Day

              Johns attempts at communication are like excited outbursts from the children’s table during Thanksgiving dinner. Everyone will look over at them just to make sure blood isn’t gushing or more food is not being spilled than was anticipated. Once they realize it’s just a child enthusiastically spouting inane crap they go back to their other conversations.

    • Len

      Eight is the colour of magic. I thought everyone knew that.

      • Darwin

        The magical colour octarine is obviously not well-known.

        • UrsaMinor

          It’s simply light with a wavelength of less than 50 picofurlongs.

    • dmantis

      JohnC,
      Please post all references in the bible meant to be taken metaphorically. So far I have the story of the flood, creation and (i assume) the tower of Babel.

      Please post all references in the bible meant to be taken literally. So far I have Leviticus (but only when talking about homosexuality), and the Old Testament as a whole (but only when Jesus said so, not when talking about genocide, rape, murder etc.).

      Thank you for your time.

      • John C

        You can know for yourself in the very Way He says you can friend. Yes, you can!

        • Ty

          Answer to your question?

          No answer!

          I can’t help but hear a fap fap fap sound every time I imagine John typing these posts.

          • Yoav

            JohnC may make more sense if you read his post in the state that will allow you to also see infra black (the Good Omens equivalent of Octarine).

            “It’s the color past ultra-violet. The technical term for it is infra-black. It can be seen quite easily under experimental conditions. To perform the experiment simply select a healthy brick wall with a good run-up, and, lowering your head, charge.
            The color that flashes in bursts behind your eyes, behind the pain, just before you die, is infra-black.”

            • Schaden Freud

              Please accept this shiny giftwrapped Internet with my complements.

        • dmantis

          JohnC,
          I asked you a simple question. I know you have been around here along time, but I responded to your argument with good faith and respect. Yet, your reply is disrespectful and condescending much less provides any additional information regarding the answer.

          Your constant spouting of empty rhetoric and feel-good platitudes is very irksome.

          • John C

            No dis-respect intended whatsoever, Dmantis. I am telling you the sheer truth friend and that is that you can certainly know for yourself. And how is this? In the very Way the Truth Himself said you could know. That is the (literal) truth. All my best.

          • Noelle

            Damn, dmantis. You don’t mince words huh? All bam with the “condescending” and “disrespectful”. Except, thing is, John C is sincere and prolly the gentlest and most respectful soul I’ve seen on here.

            Full of flaky and mystical spiritual woo no one else understands? Sure. But he’s a sweetie.

            You want condescending and disrespectful? You stick around. We serve that up all the time. :)

            • John C

              Thx, Noelle, all the best.

            • Bill

              Noelle – I have to disagree.

              As far as I’m concerned John is the most tolerated troll in the history of the internet.

              (Cue condescending “inner light – all the best” response.)

            • Elemenope

              “Troll” generally implies intentional provocation. Merely stating (at best) what one disagrees with or (at worst) what is utter nonsense to everyone else is, not strictly speaking, trolling.

              Lateral provocation is a natural part of having people who disagree talk for any length of time. Intentionality is the key in distinguishing such ancillary effects from intended ones. And Noelle is right, with very, very few exceptions John has been quite patient and polite with everyone he interacts with.

            • Kodie

              He’s an evangelist.

            • John C

              Thank you for the kind, fair words, Elemeno.

            • John C

              He’s a lover.

            • John C

              Just like ‘our heavenly Father’ is as Jesus called Him.

            • Bill

              Nope – I know what troll means.

              I think the utter lack of substantive response to direct questions indicates a level of intentional provocation.

            • dmantis

              Noelle,
              I agree with Bill and will respectfully agree to disagree with you. I try not to mince words. As I said, I appreciate John C’s longevity on this blog (obviously much longer than my own), however that does not excuse his response.

              Even though the ‘evangelist’ ethos does not INTEND to be condescending and disrespectful, the fundamental basis of it rests on the belief of some “truth” not known or understood by the non-believer. When we present evidence we get nada. When they present biblical ‘evidence’ and we question, we get nada.

              Nevertheless, my question was a simple one and spoke to the fundamental flaw with Biblical (or any religious text) theism: there is a disconnect with modern historical, scientific and ethical understanding that can only be rationalized by theists through a hodge-podge of literal interpretation in a few places and metaphorical interpretation in others. In addition, this balance between literal and metaphorical is different for each denomination.

              So, I simply wanted cliff-notes of what John C’s version is of the Bible as fact versus metaphor to better discuss with him. Yet I was met with the typical disdain of “well you just don’t KNOW the TRUTH”.

              TL;DR – John C may put things in a nice way, but he still does not discuss in good faith.

              P.S. – I hope to be around much more as I have followed this blog for along time without commenting and truly respect the community here:)

            • Elemenope

              Well, OK. Intentionality is impossible to know for sure, but it’s not that he hasn’t been consistent in the form his replies generally take. They are his answers to those questions; whether you accept them as answers is, not to put too fine a point on it, a problem for you to deal with.

              There is substance there, from his point of view. The fact that it is all marshmallow fluff from yours may indicate a mutual incommensurability of perspective, but it doesn’t automatically make reasonable the conclusion that he is jerking you around.

            • Bill

              “There is substance there, from his point of view. The fact that it is all marshmallow fluff from yours may indicate a mutual incommensurability of perspective, but it doesn’t automatically make reasonable the conclusion that he is jerking you around.”

              Nope – I appreciate that the blog generally has a soft spot for John, and I’ve laid off him since my early days here, but he does not discuss topics in good faith. See the exchange above. There is nothing in his response that even begins to answer a direct question.

              Perhaps it’s not “automatically a reasonable conslusion he’s jerking us around.” But given his long track record of this kind of behavior I think it is a reasonable one.

              I’ll concede it’s softer trolling than most we see, but I’m pretty sure it’s trolling.

            • John C

              Bill,

              Call me what you will friend, troll or whatever, its okay it doesn’t bother me but I honestly don’t think I truly fit the definition of a ‘troll’ very well (although I am a bit on the shorter side in ‘real life’, ha) since the typical troll tends to…troll meaning wander about ‘trolling’ from forum to forum espousing his or her own ideology in contrast to the one he or she ‘trolls’.

              UF is the only atheist or skeptic website I EVER visit (that should make you guys feel special, ha) and besides, do ‘trolls’ genuinely care about the ‘trolled’? I’m being playful now but I hope you hear my heart in what I’m (trying) to share with you.

              And may I say in turn, thanks for putting up with me and my contrary perspective all this time here. I appreciate you sir.

            • Bill

              “I hope you hear my heart in what I’m (trying) to share with you.”

              I hear gibberish in what you are trying to share. But others seem to have more patience for your incoherent ramblings.

            • Custador

              Arguing with John is like punching fog – I wonder why people still bother!

            • John C

              If fog-punching was an Olympic sport…:)

            • Johan

              He is sincere at least, and he seemed sincere when he admitted years ago that his religious beliefs came to him after years of drug abuse. Non-answers that are nothing but evangelizing are not respectful in any way. Sugarcoating an attempt to pretend to answer while actually refusing to answer is condescending as well.

              He’s always been this way and I have no idea why his crap is tolerated.

  • Brian K

    John C’s God is a loving God, yet He wraps himself in such obscurity and obfuscations that none can know him except a miniscule few who are willing to undergo endless mental gymnastics that somehow, some way confirm that this God REALLY wants us to be just like we imagine him to be. Kumbaya. Certainly better than Hagge’s murderous monster, but why would we even want to “know” this confusing and obscuring deity?

    Why is your “knowledge” “true” rather than a warm and fuzzy self-created emotional response? There is a great deal of pompous self importance hidden behind these oracular proclamation of TRUTH, no matter how warmly and superficially kindly they are worded.

    Remember that John C’s Gnostic predecessors called themselves The Perfected. Not exactly a humble term, even if they were, on a whole, a far superior bunch to the typical Catholic clerical parisites of the time.

    • dmantis

      Brian K,
      Better than I could have worded myself. Thank you.

      Brian K ftw!

    • John C

      As I’ve told you before, Brian, I’m not ‘gnostic’, not even close, friend and I ought to know, eh?. Besides, gnostics believed in an imperfect God (why would we trust our lives to an imperfect deity?) and they believed in a dual-personality type of God. All of this is very far-removed from my own perspective.

      God IS love, yes indeed.

      • Brian K

        But then why is His creation such a mess? Sure “Sin” but why does this perfect, loving God take the “sin” of two flawed creations He made himself (and omnisciently KNOWING what would happen) and spread the pain throughout the sentient universe? God is NOT love.

        The Gnostic response…that the physical universe is an imperfect creation of a flawed, perhaps even evil, creator spirit or fragment (the Demiurge) of a transcendent God force,is the only theology that even makes sense at all from a logical or moral perspective.

        God is either evil (the Hagge/fundamentalist version) or ineffectual (your version).

  • 100meters

    I still wonder…after the flood receded, how did the koalas get from Ararat back to Australia? That’s a long trek, what with the ground presumably being all slick and muddy for a while.

    • Mogg

      Simple – a bit of Ararat was moved to Australia with all the koalas on it. They just forgot to mention that flying bit of land in the Bible.

      • trj

        Makes sense. The Bible does mention the power to move mountains using your faith. Obviously some early Christian must’ve applied his awesome telekinetic powers to moving part of Mount Ararat to Australia. Or maybe he just teleported the koalas there directly. Who knows? Magic!

  • Mike

    @dmantis – It’s pretty simple really. If you can’t accept what the Bible says then make it a metaphor using whatever parts of the Bible seem to support what you’d like it to mean.

    If you do like what the Bible says then accept that part as literal.

    So John C, obviously, struggles to accept that flood story as literal so he pulls from Peter to make the flood story “more” (read metaphorical).

    However, notice how he likes what Peter says, therefore he accepts Peters words a literal and not metaphorical.

    However, there is a good chance that even Peter could become metaphorical if forced in a corner…

    • John C

      Mike, uh…no. What happens in our journey, if we’ll persevere with Him into the brightest light (Prov 4:18) we’ll eventually see into the highest, most liberating things, the little-known secrets of scripture, the ‘hidden things’, etc. But if we stay in unbelief, we’ll stay in the dark, won’t see Him in the light of Truth.

      All the best.

      • Brian K

        Then why should we worship a Being who demands such labor, such obscurity?

        And why do you think YOUR journey, which is so much a minority view/special pleading/unique view, has led to any Truth?

        It either doesn’t make sense, or it is perverse.

        • John C

          Just the opposite, no labor, no self-effort as He says ‘learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls’ (Matt 11:29). He is always pointing us to a restful state in Him, ie the ‘Sabbath’ rest (not a literal day anymore but a spiritual state we reach in Him). When I speak of the journey, its an unfolding of greater light (truth) and those who persevere get the ‘best stuff’. Its your perception of Him that needs light, Brian. He is not like ‘you’ say He is. But He most certainly…is.

      • Mike

        Not sure how you got all that from that verse… but either way, how do you know you’re interpreting the verse correctly? It could be a metaphor for anything. Besides, it says the “righteous”… the righteous could be any number of people whom are living moral lives (with or without beliefs in gods).

        • Kodie

          The inner spirit moves through John and confirms everything he thinks is correct. Although he doesn’t realize it’s the other way around. Why else does he go try to fuck up words so they appear to mean more? He is modifying what he reads to the metaphors that please him, and that “pleased” feeling he attributes to the holy spirit.

        • John C

          Righteousness (right-standing with God) is imputed/imparted (1st Cor 1:30) but can never be ‘earned’ through ‘moral’ living, by our own merits, self-efforts, etc. Its purely a benefit of His ‘it is finished’ work on the cross, friend.

          How do I know? Because I know Him and hear His voice, just like He said we would (John 10:27) so we do.

          All the best, Mike.

          • Mike

            How do you know the voice you hear isn’t the evil one deceiving you and making you think you’re interpreting things correctly when in fact you have it all wrong!?

            Besides, you interpreted John 10:27 incorrectly according to Spirit that guides me.

            See, He was referring to His sheep (aka the Lamb of God and the Holy Spirit). His sheep (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) hear His (God the Father) voice and follow Him.

            This proven by reading the first chapter of John (John 1:29) where he establishes Jesus as the Lamb of God.

            I feel 100% convicted by the Spirit on this because I converted to Christianity last night after reading all of your posts. The Lord has spoken to me and I am now one of his children (not sheep).

            Blessings to you, my brother.

  • Ken

    Um, isn’t the ability to discern the will of God a gift of the Holy Spirit? Which means all of our doubts and arguments are, in fact, being dictated by the will of an omnipotent God. Seriously, if he wants us to believe in him, God has to make it happen — we cannot, in ourselves, do anything to thwart his will. And it is obviously his will that many of us here doubt him. I mean, I grew up groveling and begging for the faith that Christians claim, but it just never happened. I knocked and knocked, but God didn’t answer with the peace and certainty of “faith.” One day I just gave up and decided that the ball is in his court now, and I’d better get on with the rest of whatever life I have here on Earth. If I am “fallen,” and entirely dependent on God for salvation, and there’s nothing I can do to earn his grace, then it seems I just have to accept that he hates me and make the best of my damnation, if all this nonsense were true. At least that’s the logical outcome of the Bible I’ve been reading for decades, unless there’s some secret code nobody has ever explained to me.

    • Len

      Nobody expected the secret code in the bible. Cue John C to jump through the door to explain that the three main secrets are … , the four main secrets are …

      • Brian K

        It is just our role to accept our damnation. Because God loves us! Eternal torture is a feature of God’s love, doncha know?

        • John C

          No, Love won’t forget about you, the gospel is the ‘good news’ for all (Luke 2:10), not just a select few but the ‘order’ is up to you….’For as in Adam all died, so also in Christ shall all be made (spiritually) alive’. But every man in his own order, Christ the first fruits (resurrection state), afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power’. (1st Cor 15:22-24)

          • Brian K

            I’m sure the 90% of the population who would be theoretically suffering for eternity in hell are calmed by the fact that God and Je-sus “love them”. What a monstrous kind of love.

            • Brian K

              You are so wrapped up in your blanket of fuzzy feelings that you cannot even see the evil behind the Christian doctrine…even your warm and cuddly version.

    • dmantis

      Ken,
      It doesn’t matter if you have made every effort to make that ‘spiritual leap’. Unfortunately, this is a pass/fail course. Believe or Burn! BUT, God is love!

      What you forget is that he also REALLY enjoys watching you burn in hell for eternity through no fault of your own. THEMS THE RULZ

      Just buisness. Nothing personal.

      • Ken

        I know. It really punches a hole in the “God is love” argument when it all depends on God’s whims, and he doesn’t deliver. But it’s still your fault.

  • vasaroti

    I’ve never understood why a variety of Xian groups, who all are adamant that nobody should add to or change the Bible, accept the calculations of Bishop Ussher. He used lots of pagan sources in his dating! And he was (ewww) Irish! And he used math, that sneaky stuff that heretics like Galileo use!

  • Schaden Freud

    Those links are full of win.

    • http://www.sarahtrachtenberg.com Sarah Trachtenberg

      I love your avatar name.

  • http://www.sarahtrachtenberg.com Sarah Trachtenberg

    I love how this is reminiscent of that Onion article.
    How do Young Earth Creationists (moan) respond to this reasoning? Do they simply say that archaeology and carbon-dating and such get “our version of events” wrong?
    Another kind of interesting part of the Noah’s ark story that biblical literalists rarely mention, because it’s damningly racist, is the part of when Noah’s black son, Ham, sees his father naked and this curses the black race (tough, but fair).

    • Azel

      Worse than that: Noah’s son, Ham, sees his father naked but its his grandson, Canaan who gets cursed…I fail to see the fairness in that, to be honest.

      • trj

        That’s just how God rolls. He’s a big fan of punishing the descendants for sins they didn’t commit. The Old Testament has many, many examples. Even Jesus himself wasn’t above cursing entire cities to hell based on what their ancestors did.

        • UrsaMinor

          Yes, as an ethical principle, it seems suspect. It completely does away with the concepts of moral agency and free will.

          Sort of reminds me of Legalism in ancient China. If you didn’t report your neighbor’s illegal activities, you were punished for his crimes too. Severely.

  • Bob Decker

    The “Bible” or better known as “Fables and Fairy Tales” was written by people 2000 years ago who if they were around today would have a looming IQ of about 75, and would have their jaws dropped just on the knowledge that earth is round. The human brain controls everything we do, from how we learn, how we think, how we respond, and that little brain in its early stages (childhood) can be set by anyone older.

  • http://www.mulberryouletuk.org.uk/ mulberry uk

    Sweet blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Appreciate it


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X