Has Noahs Ark been found. Interesting read

[norinco982lover]

Let's go back to the ark....

Now who was it that said there is no evidence of a global flood? I see evidence everywhere...the fossil layer is amazing!

~Norinco

[MechAg94]

Let's go back to the ark....

Now who was it that said there is no evidence of a global flood? I see evidence everywhere...the fossil layer is amazing!

~Norinco

My question is what evidence are you looking for that you supposedly can't find?

Remember that we are talking about an event that took very little time.

[MechAg94]

 

Are you saying the bolded portion is the original-recipe Christianity they wanted suppress?  If so, those people simply failed, because every English version of the Bible I've seen lays out exactly that.  Or do I misunderstand you?  

You may be misunderstanding that, fistful.  I think Battle Monkey of Zardoz was trying to point out that these concepts virtually guaranteed that folks had to go to the Church  for absolution of their sins through Christ.  And another thing not pointed out is that one of the tenets of the Church is that we are all born sinners  --Original Sin --which again leads one back to the Church and Priests to solve that problem.

Blessed be,

Terry, 230RN

No offense, but that is patently false.  I grew up in a non-denomination Church and the pastor taught and translated from the original greek and hebrew and always demonstrated differences between those and the English.  None of what you say was taught.  If you want to confess your sins to God, do it.  No one is stopping you.  You don't need a priest.  The Bible doesn't say you need a priest.  

The idea of going to Church is to learn more about the Word of God so you can understand it and apply it in your life.  Most people don't have the knowledge and background to read the Bible themselves and understand it fully so we have pastors/priest to teach and help us understand it better.  If you are not learning about the Word of God in your Church, I would suggest finding another Church.  

[norinco982lover]

Kinda going back to what Terry was saying about going to church for the absolution of our sins...

I am a Christian (as is my wife) and we no longer go to church. We just haven't found one that we fit in at so we do our worship at home and with our families.

I have no problem with fellowshiping with believers--and I believe it should be encouraged--but at this time I haven't found a church where I feel I can do that.

Attending church doesn't make you a Christian or absolve you of your sins anymore than staying at a Holiday Inn Express and eating a continental breakfast makes you a lawyer.

~Norinco

[MechAg94]

At least some Churches make sermons available as mp3's and such.  My parents don't attend Church much, but they still listen to sermons from our old Church in Houston as they live a bit too far to drive. 

[roo_ster]

So the "books" that were excluded by the Niceaan council have no merit?  Constantine and early church members gathering together to decide on what books would be called the bible?  If that is not man keeping you down by deciding what will be released and what will not, I dont know what is.  Its control of subject matter. 

The Gospel of Thomas.  Early as the Death of Christ.  Not included.  Why?
THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER.  Not included.  Why?
The Book of Enoch.  Not included.  Why?

Why did the early leaders and a Roman Emperor decide what folks needed to read.  Then go on a rampage to erase and destroy the books they deemed not worthy.

These are just some that the "powers that be" decided the flock did not need to know or have knowledge.  Its a documented part of history, and is not incorrect.  This too has been studied and a many of papers submitted on this subjest matter, by religious scholars and non belivers.  The Dead Sea Scrolls also shed some light as to different versions of the same books, Genisis as an example.  So to say I have a lack of knowledge, is a bit of a stretch.  The fact of the matter is, we probably will never know the real deal.  The Bible was written by man, and anything by man is tainted. 

First off, the councils did not determine the entire Canon.  Neither did the Roman Emperor. 

All the bigs were already used and taught and were not controversial before the big church councils met.  What was determined at some of the later councils was appropriateness of some of the smaller, lesser works as Canon, the response to various heresies not in accord with scripture, and to resolve certain questions such as the Donatists raised.

There were two overriding characteristics which determined inclusion in the Canon:
1. Elapsed time after the events
2. Similarity, message-wise, to the great majority of the Bible that was already Canon by use & tradition.

For instance, The Gospel of Judas makes the grade time-wise, but is essentially a non-Jewish, non-Christian work that presents a completely different story of creation that not only contradicts Genesis, but also is outside any Hebrew tradition or writing style. 

No matter how much dipsticks like Dan Brown think they are re-discovering lost Canon, they are just repeating the mistakes of heretics and schismatics who were shown in error a couple thousand years ago.  They need to hire George Santayana as a consultant.

Other works, clearly in accord with the non-controversial Canon, were not included because they were too late, despite their popularity and orthodoxy.

IMHO post year 312 christianity has always been about controlling political power

That would be news to many denominations.

[mellestad]

Gah.

Look, it only adds complexity if you are actively looking for a proof of God (which is an irrational act)pursuant to appealing to divinity for an ethic or something.  A believer doesn't need a rational proof for their belief/faith and unbeliever should simply not care.  Doing so by either is a voluntary intellectual effort separate from the trust and moving of the Spirit basis of faith.

You can't describe belief as necessarily adding complexity to life, as there's no complexity necessarily inherent to having it.

I wasn't talking about belief, I was talking about the logical cosmological arguments and their counter-arguments.  I was just trying to answer your direct question, that's all.

I agree, a believer does not usually need rational proof of anything.  Most believers will never even consider topics like this.

[mellestad]

There are somewhere around 24k full or partial manuscripts of the New Testament from antiquity. It has several orders of magnitude more copies of the original manuscript available than any other book of similar antiquity, and the gap between penning the original the the oldest known copy is far smaller than other ancient books. The early church fathers quote almost the entire NT (only something like 13 verses or so are not found quoted) and those quotes agree with the current version. When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, they were roughly 1000 years older than the previously oldest known manuscript copy of the Old Testament. They were basically identical.

To claim that the Bible has been altered by The Man to "keep you down" is factually incorrect and displays a total lack of knowledge about the subject matter. And that is the opinion of every serious scholar of the work, including many non-Christians and non-religious scholars.

Just be careful when you say, "Original manuscripts", because no true originals exist.

[mellestad]

Perhaps you need to get out more.  A great many people operate on the premise that science refutes concepts of God and religion.

 
I would say that the existence of a Creator and of a loving God (not necessarily separate entities) answers a good many questions more than it asks.  It's a far more elegant, satisfying, and reasonable answer to the greater questions in life than anything science and nature have been able to yield up to date.

I think I responded to your first point already.

As your your second, it may be satisfying, but saying it is elegant and reasonable is something of a strech.

[Perd Hapley]

I agree, a believer does not usually need rational proof of anything.  Most believers will never even consider topics like this.

IMHO post year 312 christianity has always been about controlling political power

Now those are truly some amusing caricatures of religious folk.  The first one is so broad as to be almost meaningless, so I can't really have much fun with it.

The second one is just low-hanging fruit, though.  I mean, seriously?  Something as diverse as Christianity has been over the past 1700 years, and you're going to say all those religious people and religious movements have been primarily obsessed with political power?  That's funny.   

[Perd Hapley]

Just be careful when you say, "Original manuscripts", because no true originals exist.

He said "copies of."  And the "originals" are referred to as the "autographs," for what it's worth. 

[mellestad]

He said "copies of."  And the "originals" are referred to as the "autographs," for what it's worth. 

Hence why I said be careful, not "You're wrong!!!"

[mellestad]

Now those are truly some amusing caricatures of religious folk.  The first one is so broad as to be almost meaningless, so I can't really have much fun with it.

Most people put thought into Aquinas' first cause argument and the logical ramifications to complexity and infinite regress?

Dude, you must hang out in a seminary specializing in apologetics.

[280plus]

Can't we just leave God out of this?

Sorry, couldn't resist anymore. I tried my best. 

[Balog]

Placing that as a character trait found more often in religious vs non-religious folk would be where the error is. Nice try tho.

[mellestad]

@Balog:  Who did that?  He said, "A believer doesn't need a rational proof for their belief/faith and unbeliever should simply not care."  I said, "I agree, a believer does nto usually need a rational proof of anything."

I did not make a blanket statement about character traits among the religious, beyond the current topic where we were specifically discussing faith for the religious.

What I said is not even contradictory to most theists.  Most are perfectly willing to say they believe based on faith.  I'm not sure what you are contesting?

[Balog]

If you intended to state that most of the religious base their worldview on faith vs logical study, that would be accurate. It would be the implication that "Of course us non-religious folks are smarter and more logical than those poor saps" I would object to. Most people base their worldview on culture and personal experience, with logic entering it very little. The majority, on both sides. It is not a trait found mostly among the religious.

[mellestad]

Let's go back to the ark....

Now who was it that said there is no evidence of a global flood? I see evidence everywhere...the fossil layer is amazing!

~Norinco

Sorry I missed this Norinco.  How does the fossil layer show there was a global flood?  Strata in the geologic column are deposited based on age, not based on size/density like you would expect if there was water involved, and fossils are found throughout the column, also ordered by age.  Older fossils are found in older layers, with no regard for size.

If the fossil layer came about due to a flood event, it would look dramatically different than what it actually does.  We know how things precipitate and settle in a mixture, and it doesn't look like what you see in any section of the fossil layer (well, it might look like one particular layer, if that layer was comprised of some sort of water-based event that allowed time for settling).

[mellestad]

If you intended to state that most of the religious base their worldview on faith vs logical study, that would be accurate. It would be the implication that "Of course us non-religious folks are smarter and more logical than those poor saps" I would object to. Most people base their worldview on culture and personal experience, with logic entering it very little. The majority, on both sides. It is not a trait found mostly among the religious.

I did not say that.

I agree that most people base their worldview on culture and personal experience rather than rationality and logic, which matches the original quote that got you started.  Again, I'm not sure what you are working at?

Edit:  You seem to be taking a statement I made in a specific discussion about a specific point and trying to apply it to a general point of your own construction, which is called cherry picking, or possibly creating a straw man.

[Balog]

You've consistently referred to religious beliefs as illogical, in a number of threads. I disagree.

That point seems to specifically indicate religious people as needing no rational basis for their beliefs, as though it were a trait found more in them than in the rest of the populace. If you don't feel religious people are no more prone to having an irrational basis for worldview than the non-religious, why even point it out? Sort of like saying "Black folk sure do love watermelon and fried chikin" then defending it on the basis that all people love those things and you just happened to be talking about blacks at the time.

[mellestad]

You've consistently referred to religious beliefs as illogical, in a number of threads. I disagree.

That point seems to specifically indicate religious people as needing no rational basis for their beliefs, as though it were a trait found more in them than in the rest of the populace. If you don't feel religious people are no more prone to having an irrational basis for worldview than the non-religious, why even point it out? Sort of like saying "Black folk sure do love watermelon and fried chikin" then defending it on the basis that all people love those things and you just happened to be talking about blacks at the time.

If you want to quote-mine me and use those quotes to bash in a straw man it isn't like I can stop you.  All I can do is point out that my statement was perfectly valid and reasonable in response to the conversation I was having with another poster.

And of course I think religion is illogical, if I thought it was logical I wouldn't be an atheist!   It isn't like you're going to pierce my rhetorical heart with that zinger.  If I wanted to say a religious belief was illogical, it isn't like I would try to hide it, I'm not shy.

But in this case, I was not being snide, I was just agreeing with another poster within the context of continuing dialog.  Breath, Balog.

[Balog]

I'm quite calm I assure you. I just dislike trolls.

[mellestad]

I'm quite calm I assure you. I just dislike trolls.

You might want to go to Google and look up "Cognitive Dissonance"

Just saying.

Edit:  And please keep it classy.  If you're just going to start calling me a troll and refuse discussion every time I disagree with you it is going to get old pretty fast.  Don't mistake passion for belligerence.

[norinco982lover]

Sorry I missed this Norinco.  How does the fossil layer show there was a global flood?  Strata in the geologic column are deposited based on age, not based on size/density like you would expect if there was water involved, and fossils are found throughout the column, also ordered by age.  Older fossils are found in older layers, with no regard for size.

If the fossil layer came about due to a flood event, it would look dramatically different than what it actually does.  We know how things precipitate and settle in a mixture, and it doesn't look like what you see in any section of the fossil layer (well, it might look like one particular layer, if that layer was comprised of some sort of water-based event that allowed time for settling).

Have you researched the rock layers of the Grand Canyon? How do you explain the marine fossils more than a mile above sea level? What about the shellfish in the Himalayas (29,000 ft above sea level)?

Well...I think you are going to believe what you want to believe (based on scientific proof) and I am going to believe what I believe (based on scientific proof). It can be summed up pretty well with the 2 contrasting answers found at this link: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_presence_of_marine_fossils_on_mountain_tops_confirm_that_Noah's_Deluge_really_happened

[MechAg94]

Sorry I missed this Norinco.  How does the fossil layer show there was a global flood?  Strata in the geologic column are deposited based on age, not based on size/density like you would expect if there was water involved, and fossils are found throughout the column, also ordered by age.  Older fossils are found in older layers, with no regard for size.

If the fossil layer came about due to a flood event, it would look dramatically different than what it actually does.  We know how things precipitate and settle in a mixture, and it doesn't look like what you see in any section of the fossil layer (well, it might look like one particular layer, if that layer was comprised of some sort of water-based event that allowed time for settling).

For a flood event that supposedly happened inside of a year or so, what sort of fossil layer evidence are you expecting to find?