Theological Debate

[Alvar]

May 1, 2018 9:46:23 GMT theinconceivable1 said:

Alright, that makes quite a bit of sense but that "a house divided cannot stand verse" is stopping me from being fully convinced. How does this verse not say that people cant cast out demons?

(also are you a Calvinist? you sound likes some Calvinists I know.)

When Jesus talks about a house being divided against itself, I understand it to go back once more to motives. If Satan were to cast out demons for the purpose of glorifying Jesus, that would indeed be a house divided against itself. However, if Satan purposefully allowed people to cast out demons, knowing that those people would use it to further their own purposes and to draw attention away from God/show people that God isn't necessary to cast out demons, it wouldn't be a house divided against itself. The metaphorical "house" must be united in its goals, not so much its actions. Otherwise, the Antichrist doing miracles would be dividing Satan's house against itself. Now, I'm not saying that every exorcist who wasn't a part of God's kingdom used Satanic power, knowingly or not. I must admit that I don't know how these people did their exorcisms, especially considering the Bible doesn't tell us how. Towards the end of the New Testament, it seems that the focus for early Christians switched to standing firm in God's Word rather than actively casting out demons. Perhaps that as the New Testament continued to get closer to completion, the Church had more weapons than simply exorcism to use in spiritual warfare.

Also, no, I am not a Calvinist. I tend to align myself with Baptist theology. How about you?

[theinconceivable1]

May 1, 2018 11:55:01 GMT Alvar said:

May 1, 2018 9:46:23 GMT theinconceivable1 said:

Alright, that makes quite a bit of sense but that "a house divided cannot stand verse" is stopping me from being fully convinced. How does this verse not say that people cant cast out demons?

(also are you a Calvinist? you sound likes some Calvinists I know.)

When Jesus talks about a house being divided against itself, I understand it to go back once more to motives. If Satan were to cast out demons for the purpose of glorifying Jesus, that would indeed be a house divided against itself. However, if Satan purposefully allowed people to cast out demons, knowing that those people would use it to further their own purposes and to draw attention away from God/show people that God isn't necessary to cast out demons, it wouldn't be a house divided against itself. The metaphorical "house" must be united in its goals, not so much its actions. Otherwise, the Antichrist doing miracles would be dividing Satan's house against itself. Now, I'm not saying that every exorcist who wasn't a part of God's kingdom used Satanic power, knowingly or not. I must admit that I don't know how these people did their exorcisms, especially considering the Bible doesn't tell us how. Towards the end of the New Testament, it seems that the focus for early Christians switched to standing firm in God's Word rather than actively casting out demons. Perhaps that as the New Testament continued to get closer to completion, the Church had more weapons than simply exorcism to use in spiritual warfare.

Also, no, I am not a Calvinist. I tend to align myself with Baptist theology. How about you?

alright cool! I guess that makes sense, because if Jesus were of Satan but was glorifying God then the house would be divided against itself. Ok thanks! Thats one question off my plate XD. 

I don't exactly know what denomination I'm in... I'm still figuring it out. I'm pretty sure I don't believe in faith AND works (so I'm not a Catholic) but even that I'm not 100% sure about. I have looked into the "free will/Predestination" argument and have sided with predestination (I believe God is in constant control of absoultly everything) but I'm not a Calvinist cuz at this point I don't agree with all five points (particularly that salvations permonate) I guess you don't have to agree with all five points to be a Calvinist but frankly I don't like the term. It has a lot of derogative meanings to a lot of people I know. So ya... I'm still searching!

[Alvar]

theinconceivable1

Predestination, eh? What makes you think that? I for one think that the only way for us to truly love God is for us to have free will, and having free will is really the only way to solve the problem of evil.

[theinconceivable1]

hum...yep. No free will does present a difficult "how is God good" question but I believe its what the bible says. Romans 9 is especially convincing!

[Alvar]

EDIT: I'm so sorry if I come off as confrontational in this post, I get really passionate about this topic.

So you don't believe we, as humans, have free will? If so, then what was the cause of original sin? Did God actually cause Adam and Eve to eat from the tree (and by extension, cause extraordinary suffering on every successive generation afterwards), or was it them abusing God's gift of responsibility for their own actions? It's no love if you force people to love you. No free will seems to me to be contrary to God's character. I see Romans 8 saying that we are predestined to be come righteous in Christ as Paul's guarantee that God's elect are going to become more like Jesus by God's Grace alone.

I've seen it explained this way; God could have created a race of robots designed to love God for all of eternity with no other interaction with creation. This, however, is a very shallow love. The only other option is creating a race that He knows will rebel if He gives us free will, but the ones that do choose to love Him freely will love him in a much more real way. God, knowing that the only way to have true love and fellowship with His creation is to give us free will, creates us. Of course, we rebel by abusing God's gift of free will. The only way for God to be both righteous and allow us to sin is to give some form of punishment. However, the problem arises here; the only punishment worthy of a fallen race rebelling against an eternal God is eternal suffering for all of us. This sets the stage for God's ultimate plan. The only way for God to remain righteous and at the same time allow us to continue existing the way we do, He had to substitute Himself for the punishment. God accomplishes three things with this: He establishes a fellowship with His creation, He gives the people who truly love Him an opportunity to be saved, and saves us from our inevitable punishment. Of course, the people who continue to reject God are still punished at the end of days, but the people who freely choose to love God and follow Him are transformed by God's mercy and get to spend eternity loving and glorifying God with a much deeper and richer love than the love of people forced to love God. Both outcomes result in eternal love, but one outcome is a much better love than the other. Which would God choose?

I've always seen God's will like this; God in his omniscience knows not only everything that will happen, but every possible thing that could ever happen. We have the free choice to choose God's desired will for our lives, or we can choose the path of destruction.

Here's an article I found on Romans 9, if you're interested: reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-romans-9/

[theinconceivable1]

Ok I've read most if the article and I think I've heard this argument before. Its just, I can't believe that, because of context, the original language and whatnot that this verse means the exact opposite of what it clearly says! i just can't believe that... I respect your opinion but I'm quite convinced this verse says God has total control over everything: especially over the salvation of people.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

What is this? A new conversation in the Theology debate thread! I must keep an eye on this! Nice to meet you theinconceivable1. I see you are from NZ--are you someone I may know by any chance, like a family member of someone already on here?

And good to see you back again Alvar!

I shall keep an eye on this conversation, and may perchance join in. I'm Catholic, so my view would mostly be similar to Alvar's concerning Predestination and Free Will. I believe we have Free Will, but I also believe that God does in some way Predestine us, as Romans 9 says. How those things fit together is harder to explain, but I often put it in terms of "God predestines us to have a free choice"--which is kind of a surface view and obviously we can go much deeper to look at how that relationship works in more detail.

[theinconceivable1]

Hey Aviar Goldenegale!

[theinconceivable1]

are you from NZ? I'm actually from America but I'm in NZ presently. As far as predestination is concerned I believe we have "free will" but not in a traditional sense. Much like a caricter has "free will" within a book. The author is technically in control but kinda not...

[theinconceivable1]

I actually used to believe in free will but came to the hard conclusion after reading Romans 9 and verses like it. The hardest thing for me with the transition was to unpack how God was good which I'm still working threw at the moment. Presently I believe he's good simply because he says he is... not because I see how.

[Alvar]

theinconceivable1 Aviar Goldeneagle

When it comes to a discussion about the true meaning of a passage, the best way to answer that is to look at the original meanings of the words, the historical context of the message, and the biblical context. The article does a great job of covering those.

1. Paul was writing to Israelis who denied Jesus as the Messiah because they were God's chosen people and to believe anything else is heresy to them.

2. We can further see this with how Paul uses figures of speech like "love and hate" that are repeated in even Jesus's own words.

3. The summary of Romans 9 seems to go against the deterministic approach by calling the Israelites to choose strive for faith rather tham righteousness in the Law.

4. This all comes together to show the Isrealites that God can decide to show His Mercy to all people, not just them.

5. Lastly, if there were no ultimate free will, God would be a cruel creator for creating people for the sole purpose of destruction. This goes against God's loving nature, and contradicts numerous verses talking about God's global compassion. Not to mention that forced love would be a very shallow love to offer someone.

6. In conclusion, based off of the historical and biblical context, Romans 9 does not conflict with the dozens of other passages that say God desires all people to be saved. To say otherwise is to reduce Jesus's importance in the world and lessen the impact of His sacrifice, because some people will never be saved simply because they were predetermined not to.

(I'd like to add that if Paul were advocating for the deterministic approach, we would probably see it a bit more in his other writings, eg. mainly most of the New Testament)

Appealing to free will doesn't mean we're saying God can't have full control over everything, but saying that God is merciful enough to allow us to have free will even if it leads to our own destruction. The purpose of Jesus's sacrifice was to show the world the path to salvation, and give us the choice to either accept or reject it.

[theinconceivable1]

alright, well I personally dont find this "context' argument convincing because those three points don actually go against the "deterministic" interpretation. First, Paul was, at this part in the book of romans, writing to isalites. Why does this change anything?

The point of the passage was to show that God has not failed in his covenant to Israel. He then shows how he kept the covenant in the past by using his sovereign will (Esau, Jacob, Pharow). It shows that nothing stops God from completing his plan, even human "free will" I mean it literally say "it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on who God has mercy" if I recall the verse correctly.

I've heard the "hate meaning a strong dislike" thing before and I think that's good! I dont see particularly how this goes against my interpretation.

the last point is ok but I don't know how we know this is a "summary" per say but even if it is It isn't enough to discount what I believe was clearly said before.

hum... I dont know where you got that conclusion. did you read the "vessels prepared for destruction" part?

now this point actually IS a good argument. probably the real reason why you don't believe in predestination, or at least, its why I didn't believe. I came to the same conclusion... problem is thats where I am right now XD. The best answer I have is: "just cuz you don't see it doesn't mean its not true" Paul actually answers this question in the Romans verse. I honestly dislike his awnser but he said: Who are you to question God! so thats my awnser to you : D (and myself as disatisfing as it is)

[theinconceivable1]

Ya, I've noticed those "jesus is the savor of all men" verses too... IDK but I'm looking into it!

here, I wrote this a little while back:

I realise I shouldn't try and persuade you that I’m right and your wrong. First because it won’t work, I might as well be talking to a brick wall, and second because it doesn't matter. Obviously I believe it does matter somewhat but that amount is so minimal It hardly need be discussed. So before I tell you what I believe on predestination and whatnot let me tell you the thing I believe that really matters. You see I used to believe to be “saved” was like taking a sort of test. That your life was a paper with a bunch of true and false questions on it (of course I wouldn't have said it at the time but this really is what used to believe). I thought that belief was checking the right boxes, that as long as you answered “true” to the right things you would get to go to heaven. So say for instance someone wrote a “True” in the “karma” or “atheist” box, well they would get an not-achieved. Catholics, they got the the right answer on the “Jesus” box so they passed but they had a tendency to write a “True” in the “faith and works” box so they usually only got an achieved but occasionally a merit. Now we protestants, will we always checked the right boxes so we usually get into heaven with low excellence at worst. That's why I had such a hard time with the whole “Calvinism (aka: predestination) VS Arminianism (aka: free will)” debate. I figured that if I checked the wrong box then I would only get an achieved or maybe not get into heaven at all! That's why I got so worried about siding with predestination because I worried I might be rejecting God all together. But you see then I talked to this guy at capernwray Bible school named Werner and he totally shattered that view. He said that believe in hebrew and greek means “to trust in” and faith is “reliance upon.” Well then everything just sorta clicked for me! Have you ever thought about about how heroes of the faith, martyrs, have come out of just about every sect of christianity? C.S Lewis held arminianism beliefs, Martin luther held calvinistic beliefs but God used both to drastically impact the world. So, what if it didn't matter what boxs you ticked. What if all that matters if you have The Holy Spirit in you? So this is the conclusion I came to: I honestly believe you can think God is the giant floating spaghetti monster but if you trust Him and His Holy Spirit is in you it doesn't matter! So that's another thing, I don't believe in the Bible… I believe in God. I don't trust the words of men that lived 2000 years ago, that's not what I believe, I believe in the real, living God. I think the bible is only a map, who I really believe, who I really trust is God, not the map that lead me to Him. That being said it's pretty hard to find what you're looking for without a map, It does happen, God appears to muslims in dreams and stuff, but by far the easiest and most efficient way to find God is by studying the map, The picture of Him we’ve been given. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you think that squiggle is a bush and I think its a tree, we’ve both arrived at the destination, but if we want to try and understand God and help lead others on the journey it would definitely be helpful to figure it out.

[Alvar]

I understand everything you said, but I think the Bible should definitely still be relevant in our lives since it is the "God-breathed" living Word of God. People may get personal revelations from God, but the Bible still has every command that God has left us in order for us to live the life He wants us to. Yes, God is the ultimate authority, but the Bible is the inspired word of God. I don't mean that you should trust soley in the Word, but to forget the words is to go against the command left in Revelation: To keep the words. If we lose our guiding light, we're bound to lose our way eventually. It's the only thing that can tell us whether or not a cult is a false belief or not. Without the Bible, the Quran might as well be true, because we wouldn't know the difference.


EDIT: The "unfairness" of predestination isn't my reason for not believing it, I simply believe there isn't much of a scriptural basis for it. And about the point on Israelites, it changes EVERYTHING. Context is everything with understanding what Paul meant. The Israelites had enjoyed a long history of being God's chosen people. Paul uses Romans 9 to get it into their heads that God could have chosen anyone else for His plan. God can choose who He wants to be merciful to. These Israelites believed that because Jesus's teachings went against what they used to believe, they were not going to listen. With this interpretation, the last part of Romans 9 makes a whole lot more sense, and Romans 9 doesn't seem to be about eternal salvation at all, but rather how God can do what He wants regardless of what we think. The Israelites, stuck in their old beliefs, need to stop striving for righteousness in the law, but should strive for faith in God. I can't explain my viewpoint any other way.

Yes, we likely won't change our minds, but the point of a debate/discussion is to have an exchange of ideas, for the betterment of both of us. Overall, we both gain knowledge about the other's viewpoint, and if it makes sense to us, we can adjust what we think. We both gain knowledge, and that's one of the best things we can gain from this.

EDIT 2: My study Bible covers this quite well.

9:6 Here, and in what follows, Paul distinguished two kinds of Israel and two kinds of election. God chose physical, historical Israel by selecting Abraham and his descendants (the "election" mentioned in v. 11). God chose the historical nation Israel, through which He accomplished many purposes, including the establishment of both Scripture (v. 4; 3:2) and the line of the Messiah (v. 5). But not all of elect, ethnic Israel constitutes elect, spiritual (saved) Israel (v. 8). Paul distinguished two kinds of election: (1) the election of the nation Israel to achieve certain tasks (also why God chose individuals—the patriarchs and Pharaoh, v. 17), and (2) election to salvation. To be in the latter group (that is, to attain righteousness) requires faith in Christ (vv. 30-33; recall what makes a true Jew in 2:28-29).
9:13-14,21 These verses may give the impression that God acts arbitrarily and apart from human cooperation, suggesting God disregards human freedom, and consequently could not hold people responsible for their actions. None of this fairly represents Paul's point here. God's gracious and merciful plan does not violate human freedom. To select Jacob over Esau reflects God's choice to have the nation Israel come through Jacob's descendants, not Esau's. In saying God "hated" Esau, Paul did not imply that God excluded him from salvation.
For Messiah's line, God chose the tribe of Judah (not the most noble of characters), rather than the descendants of Joseph (a true believer). (In that sense, he "hated" Joseph but "loved" Judah.) God executes His redemptive, gracious plan as He pleases. Humans have no claim on God. So, on the national level, God sovereignly decided to have mercy on Israel (including the patriarchs). Nevertheless, Abraham's physical children cannot claim they are automatically "elected" for salvation and are therefore "righteous" apart from genuine faith in Christ (vv. 31-32). Yet God's gracious election also operates for salvation: God has determined to save those who trust in His Son. God will have mercy on whom He wills to have mercy, and no claim even of Jewish descent will override what the divine Potter chooses to do.
Interestingly, the prophet Jeremiah also used the potter as an illustration of how God works, clearly acknowledging that God may vary His response, given human reaction to His words (Jr 18:5-10). God desires people to repent and turn to Him. The potter illustration shows that God is not immovable nor impassive and that He does not carry out His plans willy-nilly.
9:22-23 Three interpretations diverge here. (1) Paul taught "double predestination": before creation, God determined to save some and Darn others (a view often associated with Calvinists). God fixed the number He will glorify and the number He will destroy. Given that all sinners deserve condemnation, God's choice to save some demonstrates His mercy. (2) God elects some to save, leaving the rest to their deserved fate. In both of these views the non-elect, objects of His wrath, justly deserve their fate; so God is not unjust by not electing them. (3) God predetermined the general outcomes—either wrath or glory—but the saved or the destroyed determine their own fate (in response to God's initiating grace). In this view the criterion for inclusion or exclusion in "My-People" is whether sinners pursue righteousness by faith or in self-reliance (v. 32; 10:3-4,9-10). That is, those destroyed prepared themselves for their destruction. People are predestined to condemnation so long as they choose to continue in their ways and resist God's grace.

In any case, I'm just glad that we have to ability to exchange ideas, even if neither of us end up changing our mind.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

theinconceivable1: Yep, I'm from NZ, where in NZ are you at the moment? As regards Predestination, and what you said about the Bible, are you saying that you don't necessarily believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God? Also, I would basically agree with everything Alvar said, and so I'll let you respond to his points without bringing up much more of my own, since they'd basically be mostly a rehashing of his--however, I would say that, yes, God is in control of everything, but Him being in control of everything doesn't mean He can't allow us to have a free will of our own--as part of His control is allowing us to be able to choose to love Him if we wish, rather than making us robots.

[theinconceivable1]

How do I tag someone? I want to tag Avlar but I dont know how? anyway, that was really good! I think that's a reasonable argument (God predestining groups, not individuals and individuals decide which group their in based on their free will. That's what I got from that, tell me if I missed something : D) I'll think about it... but don't get your hopes too high on my conversion XD. Anyway,as I said before, I dont think it "really" matters as long as we're really seeking after God! In response to your question Aviar Goldeneagle I do believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible to some degree, I haven't decided which. I mean as far as I can tell there are some minor errors (eg. gospels differing on how judas killed himself, how many women went to the tomb etc...) but I think the bible IS mostly inerrant, feel free to prove me wrong!

[Alvar]

theinconceivable1 When I tag Aviar or anyone else with a two word name, I just put the first part of the name and it works (e.g. @.aviar but without the .)

Anyway, personally for me the minor differences between the gospels has to do with a variety of factors; 4 different eyewitnesses (and I should mention the gospels pass the eyewitness testimony test quite well, with some remembering different things and others remembering the same events slightly differently, but all telling the same story. This shows that they didn't meet up to "get their story straight" beforehand, and that they were writing from memory), different times of writing, and the time period they wrote it in, though all within a reasonable time from the events that happened. I've heard it explained why John is so much different from the others like this:

John was the last apostle of Christ alive. Back in that time period, you had to be real careful about what you wrote about someone lest you risk being branded a heretic and killed immediately. John was the last one; so he wrote down the full story as he remembered it, because otherwise nobody would know the whole truth of Christ's divinity.

About Judas's death, it doesn't say which tree he hung himself on. He very well could have hung himself on a tree outstretched over a cliff, which would easily explain how he ended up dashed on the rocks. One account describes how he died, the other describes how they found his body.

[theinconceivable1]

Alvar like that? hum... well I've heard the "Judas hanged himself and the rope snapped so he fell headlong" answer and frankly i find it unconvincing. I get the different accounts but still it is an error, they say different things happened and thats not possible so I get why their different but still...

[Alvar]

theinconceivable1 If you go to a court of law and listen to witnesses give testimony, you're going to hear the same story but from different perspectives. It's not an error that one person remembers one thing and that another remembers something different as long as it's the same event. In fact, it would be even more suspicious if all their stories matched up with a degree of accuracy, since it would imply that they got together to make up a story. However, we don't have that. We have four different people describing the same events from different perspectives, aside from Luke. Luke interviewed other eyewitnesses, but I digress. Why do you think there's four gospels in the first place?

Also it's not that the rope snapped. Judas wasn't thinking about how he wanted to die, he just wanted to die. I doubt he would have taken the time to set up a stool for him to stand on while hanging himself. It would have been much easier for him to just hang off a branch that was already over open air. The branch snapped under the weight of his body, and he was found dead dashed upon the rocks at the bottom of the cliff. I don't see why that couldn't have happened, especially because it's much easier than the alternative.

[Ellron Silvertree]

Just a thought, a little one.

Another reason the Gospels differ (especially John from the other three, the Synoptic Gospels) is because they have different purposes and audiences. Not to mention different authors. Matthew's primary audience was the Jews, so he emphasized certain things for their benefit and left other things out. Luke's was written more for gentiles and was written based on eyewitness accounts, as Like never met Christ. John's Gospel was written with a greater emphasis on Christ's miracles and his divinity, as well as a few other things.
It's not so much that they are "errant" because certain details differ, but that certain details are more important for the goal of their writing. If I give a testimony of my life, the account will vary slightly depending on my audience and my focused intent. If I'm giving a talk to middle schoolers on trust, I'll emphasize points in my life when I had to trust in my parents or in God. If I'm giving a talk on obedience to high schoolers I will focus on different parts of my life. The details may vary a bit each time I tell it but that doesn't make the story errant.
Also, there is the question of what exactly "inerrant" means. I would posit that the inerrancy of the Bible has more to do with the Revealed Truth of Salvation than with historical facts (though that is not to say facts are thrown out the window. The Gospel story is true, but it is focused on Christ's ministry, not his fashion or diet). Some of the books are actually fictional stories, or poetry. Remember, the Bible is not one book but a collection of written works from across the centuries, gathered together by the Church and prayerfully determined to be the fullness of public Revelation in regards to the nature of God and Salvation. It's purpose is to reveal supernatural truth. In that way it is deemed "inerrant."

Whew, that was a longer thought than I thought :P
Sorry, folks.

[Alvar]

Ellron Silvertree I think one of the best things that testifies to Biblical Inerrancy is the accuracy of it's prophecies. There are dozens of prophecies of the messiah that were fulfilled in Christ, and the books those prophecies are found in were certainly written hundreds of years before He was born. Not to mention Daniel's 70 weeks and other prophecies. One of my favorites is a prophecy about Egypt that says that Egypt will be invaded and never again exalt itselt above the other nations, and since that invasion came to pass Egypt has never built itself back up to it's previous glory. A lot of atheists either dismiss the prophecies altogether, try to come up with a counter interpretation that doesn't hold in the wake of careful study, or in the case of prophecies about Jesus, they sometimes claim that He never existed at all.

Also one more thing to add; Jesus's prophecy about Israel being destroyed came true (and the Temple still hasn't been rebuilt, watch out for that in the coming years). In a certain OT book that I can't remember the name of, it speaks of Israel coming back to it's homeland that seems to have been fulfilled in the reestablishment of Israel in 1948. Fulfilled prophecy is a powerful weapon in the hands of a believer.

[theinconceivable1]

cool! well thanks for the input.

[Asariah Darkthorne]

To whoever would like, would anyone like to discuss these ideas?

*Was Noah's Flood Worldwide or Local?
*Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?
*What is the Nature of Original Sin?
*Creation or Evolution?

If these ideas have already been discussed in depth or sound boring, I'm happy to discuss whatever is on anyone's mind. Just in the mood to discuss theology/eschatology in general.

[Ellron Silvertree]

Maybe one of the latter two next week, after I finish finals.

[Alvar]

I prefer not to deal in debates on evolution vs creation as evidence for both sides is pretty shaky. As for Noah's Flood, I do believe that was global, if anyone would like to discuss that. The nature of Original Sin seems interesting. Honestly I'm not a real big fan of debates over Genesis, but if the chosen debate looks interesting I'll join in.

[Asariah Darkthorne]

Alvar I know, nobody ever wants to discuss it haha. I already know where I stand on the issues, but I always want to hear what other people have to say, to try to articulate myself and make sure I'm aligning myself with what's accurate and truthful. But everyone always decides to briefly give a few points and then not discuss it. But for sake of conversation, I think the Flood was local, as the Hebrew suggests this strongly, and Noah would have had no idea that he was even on a planet, much less what one was. Further, the nature of a global flood especially in the recent past is seemingly impossible, and there exists no evidence to suggest that such an event actually happened. As such, I think it's more likely that the flood was local, but would love to get your take on it. Or if you'd rather discuss something not as "genesis-y", I'd be happy to discuss any idea you've got on your mind!

[Alvar]

All Noah really needed to know was that God was destroying humanity, right? There's also the possibility of the Genesis being allegorical, too. Personally, I think the flood was global.

EDIT: Well, as far as evidence goes, it seems that there was a cataclysmic flood in the Black Sea region, so that could definitely be the flood. The flood there was a rapid increase of water level, so that definitely could be an act of God. Perhaps most if not all of humanity was concentrated in that area in the antediluvian world?

[Warrior of Aror]

Anyone have thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

For the most part I really like him. He's saying stuff that in this day and age a lot of people need to hear. He's not particularly religious and has an interesting take on religion, but the stuff he's saying in fighting back against the liberal thought and speech police, and just his general spreading of sensible views in an intelligent way I think is really good.

[Warrior of Aror]

I agree. There is a lot of discussion over whether some day he will become a Christian. Or announce that he is. He is treading a funny way between the common, or accepted, paths. I know of at least one person who became a Christian because of him. Because he is not exactly in agreement with Christians (anyway, not at all in an orthodox way) as you said, he is able to reach people who would otherwise ignore the other perspective. Sensible views, as you said. Hopefully, sometime he will have enough sense to go the whole way.