Ask A Protestant Christian II

[JollyRoger]

Biblical literalists do not teach that every word of the Bible is literal, they teach that the history of the Bible is literal, that doesn't mean no symbolism. Just only when its logically intended.

If all things are possible through God, isn't it logically possible that God treated his chosen people literally like a harlot?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If all things are possible through God, isn't it logically possible that God treated his chosen people literally like a harlot?

Totally taken out of context. Paul was talking about how he could live in any situation, whether he had much or was in want, he could do all things through God who strengthened him.

 

[Arakhor]

Yeah. Probably little ones, but certainly yes. Two of every kind...

Its theoretically possible that they were extinct before the Flood, but they could not have been destroyed by the Flood... But I think they made it on the ark.

You mean seven of every kind for clean beasts and two of every kind for unclean beasts. Why could they not have been destroyed by the Flood? Where are they hiding today if they are not extinct?

 

[SG-17]

Would dinosaurs have been considered clean animals?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You mean seven of every kind for clean beasts and two of every kind for unclean beasts.

Yes, my bad.

Why could they not have been destroyed by the Flood?

I guess they could have died in the ark, but they were definitely brought on the ark because they were unclean and so there were two of them.

Where are they hiding today if they are not extinct?

I'm not suggesting that there are thousands of them, but that there may be a few, probably small and in the water, due to the thousands of reported sightings. And again, I'm not saying they exist, just that its possible and its my personal belief.

But if they exist, probably in the water...

@SG-17- I think they'd apply as lizards so no. Its just that in Moses' time dinosaurs were few and far between, if they even existed at all, so they weren't listed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Totally taken out of context. Paul was talking about how he could live in any situation, whether he had much or was in want, he could do all things through God who strengthened him.

If God could create the world in 6 days, how is it not possible for him to turn his chosen people into a harlot for a bit of sadistic humiliation?

 

[GhostWriter16]

He could, except its contrary to his nature and he doesn't have a body.

Can you guys please refrain from asking non-serious questions?

 

[SG-17]

Yes, my bad.


I guess they could have died in the ark, but they were definitely brought on the ark because they were unclean and so there were two of them.



I'm not suggesting that there are thousands of them, but that there may be a few, probably small and in the water, due to the thousands of reported sightings. And again, I'm not saying they exist, just that its possible and its my personal belief.

But if they exist, probably in the water...

@SG-17- I think they'd apply as lizards so no. Its just that in Moses' time dinosaurs were few and far between, if they even existed at all, so they weren't listed.

What about members of the maniraptora clade (aside from birds)? They are much more bird than lizard.

 

[uppi]

Unless of course a PROTESTANT wants to argue that the Bible does not teach a Young Earth.

[bold removed]

Then I am going to argue that.

The Bible does not teach a young earth. Such a statement is a confusion about the method and the actual message. The Bible tells a story about the origin of the earth and uses that to teach important points, like God is the creator, He is above everything, humans have a responsibility for Earth, humans choose to disobey God's commandments and so on. These are the messages that the Bible wants to teach. The story is just the vehicle to get these across. Just as the parables of Jesus are not about the stories, but about the messages.

Then the Bible does teach, that God is a god of truth. Therefore I do not believe that God was trying to intentionally mislead us by placing all the evidence of an old earth. And that would be the only explanation for a young earth in spite of the massive evidence there is.

And at last, the Bible commands us to be truthful. And in my experience, some YECs are anything but, when they are talking about evolution. In my opinion, most arguments I have heard in favor of a young earth are either ignorant or dishonest and thus ignoring the Bibles commands.

 

[JollyRoger]

He could, except its contrary to his nature and he doesn't have a body.

Can you guys please refrain from asking non-serious questions?

If it is contrary to his nature in a literal sense, how is it not contray to his nature in a symbolic sense? And certainly it would be possible for him to take a bodlily form for the occasion, correct?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What about members of the maniraptora clade (aside from birds)? They are much more bird than lizard.

I'm not sure. Since some birds were unclean anyways, I'm going to guess unclean, but I don't actually know this. It simply isn't discussed.

If it is contrary to his nature in a literal sense, how is it not contray to his nature in a symbolic sense? And certainly it would be possible for him to take a bodlily form for the occasion, correct?

God didn't actually make them harlots, the point is they "Prostituted themselves" to other gods.

Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked.

 

[JollyRoger]

Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked.

Then why are you selling him short on his abilities and taking a symbolic view when a literal view is possible?

 

[kochman]

Unless of course a PROTESTANT wants to argue that the Bible does not teach a Young Earth.

Well, the Bible, literally, teaches us that the world is only a few thousands of years old... which is clearly not accurate.
The period of the "7 days" is obviously symbolic of something... These simply can't be 24 hour days... These are more likely eons that are called days, if anything. Translation? Poor concepts of time at the original writing? Who knows... not me.

I don't necessarily believe the universe is 13.5 billion years, or whatever is claimed now by "scientists", meaning, those who worship the big bang theory exclusively. I don't bother trying to keep up, as the estimation has changed in my life time, and I am sure it will continue to change.

Back to the point, I don't believe that the OT in particular is meant to be so literal. I mean, if you look at it that way, when you had guys like Methusaleh living to be something like 900+ years, that means he would have been alive for quite a large percentage of history. If that were the case, why the heck didn't he write anything down? If you lived for 900+ years, imagine how you could recite history?!
Again, these numbers are not literal, quite obviously.

About the only scientific evidence for a young earth is that heavier metals such as gold are found near the surface, whereas if the planet cooled sooooo slowly, they would have sunk down to the magma core, no?

So, again, I think the concepts of time, words used to describe them, etc, probably experienced some serious changes.
When I think of the pre-Adam period, the first days... they are clearly not actual days, but symbolic.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, the Bible, literally, teaches us that the world is only a few thousands of years old... which is clearly not accurate.

Actually, the Bible literally doesn't teach any age of the Earth, but it would have to be young since (As you say, unless its symbolic) humans existed from Day 6.

The period of the "7 days" is obviously symbolic of something... These simply can't be 24 hour days... These are more likely eons that are called days, if anything. Translation? Poor concepts of time at the original writing? Who knows... not me.

I do wonder why "It was evening, and it was morning" then however.

I don't necessarily believe the universe is 13.5 billion years, or whatever is claimed now by "scientists", meaning, those who worship the big bang theory exclusively. I don't bother trying to keep up, as the estimation has changed in my life time, and I am sure it will continue to change.

No doubt. Again, I don't think its a massive deal that will destroy your faith, its just that a Young Earth makes more sense to me.

Back to the point, I don't believe that the OT in particular is meant to be so literal. I mean, if you look at it that way, when you had guys like Methusaleh living to be something like 900+ years, that means he would have been alive for quite a large percentage of history. If that were the case, why the heck didn't he write anything down? If you lived for 900+ years, imagine how you could recite history?!

Well, perhaps writing didn't exist then? Or perhaps he did write stuff and the Floodwater destroyed it.

Again, these numbers are not literal, quite obviously.

Actually, I and most people I know think they are literal. I've heard that some people try to say the "Years" were actually months, but then you have five year olds getting married and having kids, which is even worse....

Remember, there was a firmament of water surrounding the Earth, there was no bad weather, no genetic mistakes, just then had death started, if you don't assume Scientific Laws were exactly the same right beforehand, it is very possible the numbers were literal. I'm not suggesting that its essential that you believe that, but I'd like you to recognize that it can be taken literally.

About the only scientific evidence for a young earth is that heavier metals such as gold are found near the surface, whereas if the planet cooled sooooo slowly, they would have sunk down to the magma core, no?

Carbon dating actually suggests a younger Earth than scientists currently believe in, although carbon dating is altogether assumed anyway. But I'll admit there isn't a ton of evidence for a Young Earth, but think about it, why would it not make sense that God would create the (At the time, perfect) world at a matured state so tons of death didn't have to happen to get humanity?

Evolution just seems like an odd mechanism for God to choose...

So, again, I think the concepts of time, words used to describe them, etc, probably experienced some serious changes.
When I think of the pre-Adam period, the first days... they are clearly not actual days, but symbolic.

This is possible, but at present I don't accept it.

 

[timtofly]

So Protestants take the creation stories intermingled at the beginning of the Bible literally, but God's sexual violence in the Prophets figuratively?

Yes,no. God literally created the earth and He literraly allowed men to do His will even if that will offends people.

Is it possible that the story of Jesus is not meant to be taken literally, but instead symbolically, with Jesus = evolution as the one true path has evolved and if you do not believe in evolution, you are doomed?

It is possible if you are comfortable with the deceptions of thousands of people at the beginning of the CE.

Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?

They were named now weren't they?; mate.

At what point do you believe they became extinct?

When the conditions prevented them from living. Other animals become extinct all the time.

So you believe dinosaurs made it onto the ark?

Yes.

Do you believe it is fair to characterize God's chosen people as a harlot?

Yes.

Who killed Jesus?

Jesus said "it is finished, and gave up the Ghost.

How does symbolsim fit in with Biblical literalism?

The farmer sowed seeds, some fell... The Seed is the Word Of God....

If all things are possible through God, isn't it logically possible that God treated his chosen people literally like a harlot?

Yes and yes.

You mean seven of every kind for clean beasts and two of every kind for unclean beasts. Why could they not have been destroyed by the Flood? Where are they hiding today if they are not extinct?

The ones that aren't extinct are hiding somewhere, or you would not have asked where, you would have been able to say "the Philadelphia Zoo".

Would dinosaurs have been considered clean animals?

If they were, we may have had their names recorded, but they probably do not fit the characterristics of the seven of each clean animal group. If they did fit, then yes there would have been seven of them.

If God could create the world in 6 days, how is it not possible for him to turn his chosen people into a harlot for a bit of sadistic humiliation?

It is possible to be sadistic on earth, but not in Heaven?

If it is contrary to his nature in a literal sense, how is it not contray to his nature in a symbolic sense? And certainly it would be possible for him to take a bodlily form for the occasion, correct?

If one feels comfortable enough to allow God to manifest Himself to them, why would one need to ask the question?

Then why are you selling him short on his abilities and taking a symbolic view when a literal view is possible?

Is one trying to make another sell God short? It is easy to take one incident at a time and attempt to decide if one is symbolic or not, but to compare things taken out of context and link them together will sound contradictory.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Have you seen "The Life of Brian" (it's a movie)? If you have, what was your reaction? Did you think it was good?

Do you have a list of "no go" movies that you or your community decide shouldn't be supported or watched? Movies with anti-religious or blasphemous themes like "The Invention of Lying?"

Or can you appreciate comedy even when it is lampooning your beliefs?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Have you seen "The Life of Brian" (it's a movie)? If you have, what was your reaction? Did you think it was good?

Never seen it or heard of it.

Do you have a list of "no go" movies that you or your community decide shouldn't be supported or watched? Movies with anti-religious or blasphemous themes like "The Invention of Lying?"

Our community? No. Most Christians agree porn is a bad idea, but other than that, I've never heard of any "Standard."

We decide what we will watch I guess based on our own conscience (My parents are a LOT stricter than I would be though...)

 

[Arakhor]

Who are these "most Christians", Domination? That's a completely nonsensical statement.

 

[Behind The Mask]

What is your opinion on the perpetual mindset of god?

By this, I mean are his laws and decrees absolute and forever unchanging, or can these perceptions have change.

I mainly ask due to the difference, or so I hear, between the Old Testament and the New Testament god? The Former being more vengeful and the latter more forgiving. If that is the cause, and god may change with times (becoming more accepting, forgiven, ect.) then is it not possible that at some time in the present or future, a similar change may occur and opinion would change?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What is your opinion on the perpetual mindset of god?

By this, I mean are his laws and decrees absolute and forever unchanging, or can these perceptions have change.

I mainly ask due to the difference, or so I hear, between the Old Testament and the New Testament god? The Former being more vengeful and the latter more forgiving. If that is the cause, and god may change with times (becoming more accepting, forgiven, ect.) then is it not possible that at some time in the present or future, a similar change may occur and opinion would change?

Depends how you look at it. God himself is forever, unchanging, and outside of time. However, God's decrees do change, as does how he chooses to act at a given time. For instance, in the Old Testament God worked primarily through the Jews, and now he works through everyone. However, this wasn't "Changing his mind" this was the plan from the beginning. Another example is, say, stoning for adultery. God didn't "Change his mind" but the law was only supposed to last until Jesus came from the beginning, though at the time Israel did not know this.

Who are these "most Christians", Domination? That's a completely nonsensical statement.

OK, most Bible-believing Christians. That better?

I don't know of any Christians in real life who would say porn is OK.