Was Noah's the only sailing vessel?

[_Scottie]

Well, given Joseph Smith's shady backgound, what seems most likely?

I'm betting my eternal salvation on B.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, given Joseph Smith's shady backgound, what seems most likely?

I'm betting my eternal salvation on B.

Which one was B?

[_Scottie]

Well, given Joseph Smith's shady backgound, what seems most likely?

I'm betting my eternal salvation on B.

Which one was B?

He wrote a pretty mediocre book, with a healthy amount of the Bible in it, and claimed to be a prophet.

[_Hoops]

["Well if god proved himself to us, we wouldn't need faith." I take this to mean this is the reason god doesn't perform miracles or intervene. But in order for the Noah story to be plausible, you're suggesting that there's a god who does intervene, to the point where the only explanation for a particular phenomenon is a miracle. That would be a witness-able proof. God doesn't hand out proof, otherwise, no faith would be needed. (
I don't know what type you are either. It sort of sounds like your the religious type, but who knows for sure? It's not really important or central to the point I was making.

The "God won't make himself known" is for the masses. There have always been a few prophets that God supposedly speaks to. These few prophets know of His existence.

Noah and company could be in the camp of prophets. And since God was killing everyone else on the planet, I suppose that proving Himself by flooding the Earth was a moot point at the time.[/quote]

I have never said the quote above, I don't say it now, and I hope I never do - but there's no accounting for my approaching feebleness.

You want witness able proof yet you reject historicity of the Old Testament in total. What kind of proof are you looking for? Are you looking for science to support the story completely? Deign that it is possible? What would satifsy you?

My point is this: I am satisfied that there is a god. And that the Christian God is easily knowable for me within the Western tradition. I am satisfied that when one takes the Bible in its entirety it is reflective of God's character and is an instrument by which we can know him. To that end, I am satisfied that the Noah story is at a minimum expository on Him, and at a maximum can be taken literally.

I have found no credible contradictory world view.

I reject out of hand the idea that God only makes himself known to prophets. He has made himself known to me and I am as far from a prophet as one can get.

I suppose you would call me the religous type - though how that is defined is changing as often as an undergrads major.
But you brought it up, not me.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, given Joseph Smith's shady backgound, what seems most likely?

I'm betting my eternal salvation on B.

Which one was B?

He wrote a pretty mediocre book, with a healthy amount of the Bible in it, and claimed to be a prophet.

I thought so. Not much of a bet, though. Kind of like betting your soul that the sun will come up tomorrow. Not much risk involved.

;)

Betting your life away that Mormonism is true, however, is a huge risk proposition. And to think Mormons are taught not to gamble...

See? I just proved it's not true.

[_Some Schmo]

You want witness able proof yet you reject historicity of the Old Testament in total. What kind of proof are you looking for? Are you looking for science to support the story completely? Deign that it is possible? What would satifsy you?

My point is this: I am satisfied that there is a god. And that the Christian God is easily knowable for me within the Western tradition. I am satisfied that when one takes the Bible in its entirety it is reflective of God's character and is an instrument by which we can know him. To that end, I am satisfied that the Noah story is at a minimum expository on Him, and at a maximum can be taken literally.

Of course I reject the historicity of the Bible - what intellectually honest person wouldn't? It's filled with fanciful supernatural rubbish. Do you read Harry Potter books and think to yourself, "Wow, this is inspired. This stuff must really have happened!" If you start by assuming Harry Potter really exists, then sure, everything in those books is possible. Would you say to a person who rejects the historicity of the Harry Potter books, "what kind of proof are you looking for?"

You start with the assumption there's a god. Well, there's the root of the problem, and until you can let that baseless assumption go, your thinking on the topic will continue to be flawed (ie colored through the lens of faulty presupposition).

[_Hoops]

You want witness able proof yet you reject historicity of the Old Testament in total. What kind of proof are you looking for? Are you looking for science to support the story completely? Deign that it is possible? What would satifsy you?

My point is this: I am satisfied that there is a god. And that the Christian God is easily knowable for me within the Western tradition. I am satisfied that when one takes the Bible in its entirety it is reflective of God's character and is an instrument by which we can know him. To that end, I am satisfied that the Noah story is at a minimum expository on Him, and at a maximum can be taken literally.

You start with the assumption there's not a god. Well, there's the root of the problem, and until you can let that baseless assumption go, your thinking on the topic will continue to be flawed (ie colored through the lens of faulty presupposition).

[Alf'Omega]

You want witness able proof yet you reject historicity of the Old Testament in total. What kind of proof are you looking for? Are you looking for science to support the story completely? Deign that it is possible? What would satifsy you?

My point is this: I am satisfied that there is a god. And that the Christian God is easily knowable for me within the Western tradition. I am satisfied that when one takes the Bible in its entirety it is reflective of God's character and is an instrument by which we can know him. To that end, I am satisfied that the Noah story is at a minimum expository on Him, and at a maximum can be taken literally.

You start with the assumption there's not a god. Well, there's the root of the problem, and until you can let that baseless assumption go, your thinking on the topic will continue to be flawed (ie colored through the lens of faulty presupposition).

Not true. I started with the assumption there was a god (and lived that way for decades). Over time, I came to realize that the god hypothesis was unworkable and unneeded.

As soon as I cast aside that flawed thinking, things became far more consistent and sensible.

Come talk to me when you've thought about it without the god assumption.

[_Scottie]

I reject out of hand the idea that God only makes himself known to prophets. He has made himself known to me and I am as far from a prophet as one can get.

If you KNOW that God exists, then you have no more need for faith, correct?

This is the point we're trying to make. Believers are always trying to claim that God doesn't want to be known, because it would circumvent faith. But flooding the earth couldn't possibly happen unless God made it happen. Therefore, God would be tipping His hand as to His existence. But, since Noah was a prophet and already had spoken to God about the cubits and such, it didn't much matter that he knew. All the other sinners on the Earth, well, they were about to be drowned anyways, so it didn't really matter that they would know of God.

[_Hoops]

I reject out of hand the idea that God only makes himself known to prophets. He has made himself known to me and I am as far from a prophet as one can get.

If you KNOW that God exists, then you have no more need for faith, correct?

This is the point we're trying to make. Believers are always trying to claim that God doesn't want to be known, because it would circumvent faith. But flooding the earth couldn't possibly happen unless God made it happen. Therefore, God would be tipping His hand as to His existence. But, since Noah was a prophet and already had spoken to God about the cubits and such, it didn't much matter that he knew. All the other sinners on the Earth, well, they were about to be drowned anyways, so it didn't really matter that they would know of God.

I know it in the same sense that I know pluto exists, or other galaxies, or, an interesting thought, compassion. I will never have material experience of such, still, the evidence compels me.

You (not you, of course) are ascribing to me philosophies that I do not hold, while continually lumping me in with those that do. I think there is ample (Biblical) evidence that those who were destroyed by the alleged flood, did know God, could be in relationship with Him, etc. They chose not to.

Faith is bandied about willy-nilly with not much exacting agreed upon definitions. From what I understand from many here, your idea of faith is light years from the faith that I have.