A Christians perspective
POSTED BY: MalforPresident
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 23:49
VIEWED: 45327
PAGE 5 of 14
TOUCHE!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
Like yourself I also believe in God. unlike you however I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Since yo brought up noah,here's some science to chew on. If the ark had been built to the specs laid out in the bible it would have been 4 footballs fields long. Now not withstanding that Noah had only his family and maybe A few friends to build this.We know for A fact steel was not available or even known yet in this period. It is fact A wooden ark of that size would have sunk like A stone due to the weight and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks( check with the boys at Cal-tech. Also with the time period they were given to bring in every animal on the planet to the ark, they would have had to load 5 animals every second non stop. no rest no breaks no day off. Just the simple mathmatics. Also under hurricane 5 conditions it could rain 40 days and 40nights and stillnever come close to engulfing the world in water. Do I take the Bible litterally. No.
Do it think it has many wisdoms and much to teach the world absolutely. Many religions throughout history have had to make adjustments to reality. Just my perspective
jhance11
Hey ya'll. Thought I'd join this too. I'm an Evangelical Christian as well and thought it'd be good to come and speak my mind.
With reagards to your comments saying that the boat would have sunk and that the world would have not been covered in water after 40 days and nights,I disagree. This is God we're talking about. God can do anything. God is the supreme ruler and father. He can cause anything to happen. God protected Noah's ark so that he wouldn't sink and drown with the rest of the Earth while it rained for 40 nights and days. For all we know, the conditions could have been more than category 5 conditions because, remember, it's God. Today, hurricanes are caused by natural forces found on Earth. This storm was caused by God and he could have made it as strong as he wanted, even strong enough to wipe out the Earth in 40 days.
On your second point, I totally agree that many religions and philosophies had to change to conform to societies. Take Buddhism as an example. Later, the idea that all are equal was changed to fit the male dominant society so now the women are below the men and must remain that way. Buddha originally wanted it to be an equal relationship and was one of the few men who saw that equality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayne: Are you saying River's a witch?
Wash: Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the Beast.
Jayne: She's in Congress?
Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
Yeah, I know...that ark thing seems impossible, doesn't it?
I believe nothing is impossible as long as you have faith in God. To some people, it's impossible to have something like that happen or to believe that people rise from the dead, ie: Lazerus, but for me, it's as natural as breathing.
You just have to believe and have faith.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayne: Are you saying River's a witch?
Wash: Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the Beast.
Jayne: She's in Congress?
Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder why it is that so many people automatically start to get defensive and antagonistic the moment a word like "morality" is thrown into a conversation?
And why are there so many here on this board trying to force a relativistic view of morality on those of us who happen to believe that right and wrong are absolute?
Some of us believe that right and wrong change relative to one's experience and situation. ("To understand all is to forgive all," as someone once said.) Others among us believe that right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what.
I happen to fall into the second camp, but I'd like to clarify: In no way am I implying that anyone is a "bad person." From my perspective, we all do things that are "wrong". I am not here to pass judgement. In fact, I believe that condemning another person for his or her shortcomings is "wrong".
What blows my mind is that there are so many people on this board who think that they're actually going to be able to convince someone to drop his or her stance on morality.
There is no empirical evidence that can prove that morality is absolute. There is also no empirical evidence that can prove that morality is relative.
Accusing someone of being narrow-minded or naive isn't going to do anything except raise emotional levels and drown out open discussion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
I wonder why it is that so many people automatically start to get defensive and antagonistic the moment a word like "morality" is thrown into a conversation?
And why are there so many here on this board trying to force a relativistic view of morality on those of us who happen to believe that right and wrong are absolute?
I Have a one word answer: Righteousness
I have always felt that this should be a deadly sin as well, it certainly seems to be the Cause of all wars.
(Edit: The Definition of Righteousness that i am using: In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment. Virtue and Morality are cultural destictions.)
Only the half mad are wholly alive!
E.A.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another observation in the same vein.
What episode did Mal kick the bad guy into an engine intake to his death?
Jesus is Lord...by the way
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
Some of us believe that right and wrong change relative to one's experience and situation. ("To understand all is to forgive all," as someone once said.) Others among us believe that right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what.
I happen to fall into the second camp, but I'd like to clarify: In no way am I implying that anyone is a "bad person." From my perspective, we all do things that are "wrong". I am not here to pass judgement. In fact, I believe that condemning another person for his or her shortcomings is "wrong".
What blows my mind is that there are so many people on this board who think that they're actually going to be able to convince someone to drop his or her stance on morality.
There is no empirical evidence that can prove that morality is absolute. There is also no empirical evidence that can prove that morality is relative.
Accusing someone of being narrow-minded or naive isn't going to do anything except raise emotional levels and drown out open discussion.
Agreed. I don't think people are and should be condemned to be bad. According to Christianity, you should love your enemy more than your friends or family, that's why I don't hate people. I just can't. I don't hold grudges or want revenge on anyone. It's not in my nature.
The second point of yours I agree with as well. Everyone is entitled to their own belief on morality and religion and so on. Everyone is free to speak their minds and shouldn't be attacked, but everyone should politely argue their points and show their points of views on subjects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayne: Are you saying River's a witch?
Wash: Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the Beast.
Jayne: She's in Congress?
Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
It is fact A wooden ark of that size would have sunk like A stone due to the weight and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks( check with the boys at Cal-tech.
So, I *AM* one of the 'boys at Caltech' and also a rather experienced sailor, and the fact is, the Ark, if sealed using materials available at the time, would have floated just fine. Today's ships are made from materials much, much heavier than wood and they do not "sink like a stone." Weight is irrelevant in buoyancy; volume is important, and the ark had enough volume that it was able to support its own weight. You don't need to be at Caltech to know that.
Either way, your point is clear and I think, correct. The Bible does not need, and shouldn't, be taken completely literally. It is said that it was written in "the language of every man"- i.e., so that every man could understand it. Since humanity has existed for a long time, this means that it had to be written in a way such that tribesmen AND sci-tech people would be able to understand it. So to the people of the past, the ark held all the animals of the world. Today, we know it held all of the animals of *Noah's* world, which was a bit smaller than the entire globe. It's all written for understanding, not necessarily literal accuracy.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ya know, I was thinking about that moment in the movie that we've all been harping on about for the last few days (the shooting of that soldier).
I've been mulling it over, and wondering what it was exactly that Whedon was trying to accomplish with that scene. It may very well be that he was attempting to start up exactly the sort of debate that we've all been engaged in; not necessarily on a message board, but in each of our heads.
I haven't run across one post yet in which someone has declared, "I hate Mal for that! He's an evil man!" (No, seriously, no one has said anything even remotely like that.) But several of us do seem to be a little uncomfortable with the way he was behaving in that scene, even if we support his actions fully.
So, there's Whedon. Sitting in a room somewhere writing the story for the BDM. He thinks to himself, "How can I make the audience fear for Mal's mental stablity without turning them against him?"
Could it be that he meant for us all to feel a little conflicted about that moment? Maybe he intended for us to cheer Mal on and recoil in horror all at the same time.
This infamous moment reminds me of several moments in "Saving Private Ryan" (coincidentally another movie with Nathan Fillion). Anyone remember when they forced that guy to dig his own grave? Remember at the beginning when those two Allied soldiers shot the two Germans with their hands up, only to discover that they hadn't in fact been surrendering?
I love that Whedon isn't afraid to tackle the more serious issues in life while taking us on his wild space ride.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
Like yourself I also believe in God. unlike you however I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Since yo brought up noah,here's some science to chew on...
jhance11
jhance11 - It sounds like you've only been listening to one side of the scientific arguments about Noah's ark and the flood. There is substantial evidence and many plausible scientific explanations that support the Biblical accounts of a world-wide flood and the nature of Noah's ark. Here's just one example of an article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
And here's a website with more information, if you'd like to look into it further:
www.answersingenesis.org
----------------------------------------------------
"The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love."
Henry Scougal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME