aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
That's quite an arrogant statement. You speak like an unbeliever and then complain when your "Christianity" is questioned. There are many credentialed believing scientists out there who would disagree vehemently that there is absolutely no scientific explanation for a literal global flood. There certainly are viable scientific flood models to consider. I presented one previously in this thread.
No, an arrogant statement might look like " you speak like an unbeliever". There are many more Christians who speak just like me than you - does that mean anything? Just because you've decided what a believer or unbeliever sounds like means nothing. Tell me the name of one geologist or even one creditable scientist in the earth sciences that believes in a worldwide flood based on predictable, observable events. And please, don't give a name of a scientist who does not study earth science - we all know Dr. Laura isn't a real psychiatrist or psychologist even though she is a doctor.
Not according to predictable, observable events or extrapolations based on them. Do you know what intellectually dishonest means or are you just parroting James White?The miraculous intervention of God is a possible explanation, but to assert that it's the only one is intellectually dishonest.
Really? Where did Jesus's sacrifice for my sins come into the conversation of the Flood account? I think you are mixing up my rejection of mindless fundamentalist culture and fan-hood as a rejection of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world. I hope it is an honest mistake, I would hate to find out your were being in intellectually dishonest.The attacks of which you speak are not without warrant.
You may in fact be a believer, I'm not questioning that, but you're capitulating to the mostly unbelieving world of so called science. It's not the only game in town, but i know, you don't want to look bad. Good luck with that. The fact that you believe in Christ at all makes you a fool in the eyes of those you're trying to please.
Spoken like a true fan. "Don't play on the same team as those people - they don't respect you - stop trying to impress them - they are laughing at you". LOL so the fact that I call observable, predictable events and extrapolation based on them, science and events that are not, miracles, means that I am trying to impress scientists? Haha - ok. I do not believe science is the method that should be relied on to explain all of existence - that is why I do not try to reduce miracles down to scientific terms like Hamm. I just happen to know the difference between science and miracles.
No. No it does not. It only does according to your literalist mindset. Your view of God is based in Calvin's oppressive drive to preserve God's sovereignty as all costs and above all other aspects of His character. My dad can beat up your dad - very Old Testament. Now that we know Jesus, we know that people in the OT didn't take Gods entire character into consideration - apparently Calvin never got the message.One last thing. The Bible presents a literal global flood without question.
No. No it does not. Neither Paul or John knew their writings were even part of scripture at the time they wrote their contributions. The message they were conveying is that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, which Jesus had no problem summarizing. Was He leaving anything out? BTW, I am calling into question your literal view of this particular story - not scripture. I would do the same if you were taking Jesus's parables or Psalms literally.Calling into question one portion of Scripture is to call into question all of Scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either all Scripture is inspired as the Apostle Paul says or we don't know if any of it is inspired. Hence the "attacks."