Re: Noah's flood -- worldwide?
glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:10:02 +0000
At 03:17 PM 12/7/99 -0700, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>About 20 well-educated, literate, upper middle class men & women. The
>possibility that the flood was anything else than worldwide was never
>mentioned; the story, as a literal reading, was taken for granted.
>
>I kept silent, for several reasons. One was just to immerse myself in a
>cultural discussion where a literal reading of the Bible was taken for
>granted. It was illuminating.
>
>I kept asking myself -- maybe it could all be literally true?
>
>If it is not -- then what is the meaning of the discussion I am listening
>to? Does it have any meaning at all? When the NT speaks of Noah's faith,
>are those empty words?
>
>I don't have any answers to this -- shoot, I don't even have any good
>questions. This I do know -- a literal reading does seem to teach lessons
>in faith that a non-literal reading does not even come close to. What
>does this mean? Beats me.
And this is why I have trouble going to church and listening to preachers
who mention ANYTHING on science anymore. They screw it up so badly and I
react so poorly to that, that I can no longer worship my God!
In fact this type of bad sermonizing has made me wonder what other sloppy
research is being reported by my preacher on stuff about which I know
little. A week ago Ryan Rasmussen asked me to critique a radio preacher on
his science. The guy had the audacity to claim that he knew where those
trained in science and who were skeptical of Christianity were coming from.
He claimed to have majored in science and to know where they were coming
from. I checked out his web page and found that he majored in education
for his undergrad and MS. Why do anti-evolutionary Christians tend to blow
up their credentials?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution