Greg Laurie

[Sparko]

I don't recall that that is what Whag said.

It would help if you would quote what you are responding to.

[whag]

And your problem is you are forgetting that God is all powerful and can do whatever the heck he likes. Objecting to miracles because they don't fit with your conception of physics is pretty ridiculous in itself.

If God liberated water molecules from subterranean rocks to flood the earth past the planet's tallest peaks, evidence of that would be found in the natural history record. If you're saying God has the right to erase that evidence, then we have nothing to talk about; everything is thus explained by goddidit, which is no basis for an epistemological discussion.

[Sparko]

If God liberated water molecules from subterranean rocks to flood the earth past the planet's tallest peaks, evidence of that would be found in the natural history record. If you're saying God has the right to erase that evidence, then we have nothing to talk about; everything is thus explained by goddidit, which is no basis for an epistemological discussion.

Who said that is what he did? You are still trying to say God has to work through the laws of physics. The laws he created. As if God, once he created the universe is limited to acting within the limits he put on the universe. derp.

Sure, it is "goddidit" - we are talking about God DOING IT - Him creating a flood, or whatever he does in the bible. Miracles. The very definition of "God did it" - sheesh.

It is like arguing that God couldn't raise Lazarus from the dead because he would have decayed too much by the time God revived him and his brain would have been mush. Or that Jesus couldn't turn water into wine because water doesn't contain the correct molecules to create wine. derp.

[whag]

Who said that is what he did? You are still trying to say God has to work through the laws of physics. The laws he created. As if God, once he created the universe is limited to acting within the limits he put on the universe. derp.

No matter how it happened, a global flood necessarily involves an inundation that would leave a physical imprint on the earth. Since that imprint is missing, you're essentially saying that God caused a flood by some mysterious means and then erased the evidence because God can do whatever he wants. That's as inarguable as claiming Allah split the moon in twain but the evidence of that division was erased because Allah can do whatever he wants. Derp.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40928p14.htm

Sure, it is "goddidit" - we are talking about God DOING IT - Him creating a flood, or whatever he does in the bible. Miracles. The very definition of "God did it" - sheesh.

It is like arguing that God couldn't raise Lazarus from the dead because he would have decayed too much by the time God revived him and his brain would have been mush. Or that Jesus couldn't turn water into wine because water doesn't contain the correct molecules to create wine. derp.

The flood is described as being generated climatologically and geologically. That's physical and not the same as a miracle. Moreover, the issue here is trace evidence of the physical deluge on an entire planet, as opposed to miracles, such as a resurrection and one-time alchemical conversion, that we wouldn't expect to leave behind evidence. Derp.

[Catholicity]

I like Greg, too. I find him charming, funny, approachable, and charismatic. That's why this is so sad. All his efforts to woo people to Christianity are in vain when he exposes himself as a literalist. That's repellent, not attractive.

Whag, I like Greg Laurie's preaching not because of his literalism (I vehemently am not a literalist and got into a nice short debate with someone whom I really admire as a friend earlier on this forum about it) but because of his sound ability to be faithful to Christ, open and honest. If I dismissed people because I disagreed with every little thought they had about non essential portions of scripture then I would have a real problem. You'll find quickly that Christianity is not about our belief in interpretations of ideas such as Noah's flood, but about Jesus.

[Sparko]

No matter how it happened, a global flood necessarily involves an inundation that would leave a physical imprint on the earth. Since that imprint is missing, you're essentially saying that God caused a flood by some mysterious means and then erased the evidence because God can do whatever he wants. That's as inarguable as claiming Allah split the moon in twain but the evidence of that division was erased because Allah can do whatever he wants. Derp.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40928p14.htm





The flood is described as being generated climatologically and geologically. That's physical and not the same as a miracle. Moreover, the issue here is trace evidence of the physical deluge on an entire planet, as opposed to miracles, such as a resurrection and one-time alchemical conversion, that we wouldn't expect to leave behind evidence. Derp.

Many YECs do argue that there is evidence for the flood. But I thought you were complaining about water being trapped underground?

What kind of evidence are you expecting? I know that parts of the USA (around Arizona, New mexico) were once part of an inland sea, but the only evidence we have of it are some odd erosions and fossils. If there were a world wide flood, it was very short term and would not have left any fossils or any erosion, so what kind of evidence are you wanting?

[whag]

Whag, I like Greg Laurie's preaching not because of his literalism (I vehemently am not a literalist and got into a nice short debate with someone whom I really admire as a friend earlier on this forum about it) but because of his sound ability to be faithful to Christ, open and honest. If I dismissed people because I disagreed with every little thought they had about non essential portions of scripture then I would have a real problem. You'll find quickly that Christianity is not about our belief in interpretations of ideas such as Noah's flood, but about Jesus.

I think you misunderstand me, so I beg your indulgence here. I'm not saying that Greg prevents conversions because he holds a few weirdo views. Rather, I'm saying that his careless apprehension of reality reflects on his entire grasp of knowledge theory. It's my understanding that a theologian or any faith representative must be equipped with a sophisticated understanding of how things are known, so they can responsibly guide people to the kingdom with the least amount of friction. Basic belief being hard enough, that's his primary responsibility as a shepherd.

His inability to process reality is repellent to any smart skeptic. Imagine one of Laurie's impressionable congregants who might, after church, confidently repeat her pastor's climatological belief during an evangelistic conversation with a skeptic. Education would preempt that opportunity for the skeptic to embarrass her, possibly introducing a nagging doubt. For whatever reason, Laurie hasn't considered this.

It's irresponsible, especially given the low cost of educating oneself, which he's literally had decades to do.

[psstein]

Regardless of what YECs want to argue, the flood is not really caused by rain in the sense we think of it.

The author of the flood narrative would've conceived of a multi-tiered universe, something like this diagram:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/308/OTcosmos.jpg

The flood was the "opening" of the heavens and the waters coming down out of it.

[whag]

Regardless of what YECs want to argue, the flood is not really caused by rain in the sense we think of it.

The author of the flood narrative would've conceived of a multi-tiered universe, something like this diagram:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/308/OTcosmos.jpg

The flood was the "opening" of the heavens and the waters coming down out of it.

Surely they'd also have experience of torrential downpours (that cause flash floods) and also wellsprings. I don't think it's as simplistic as saying they distinguished the opening of the heavens from God using nature to inundate the world.

[Jedidiah]

The author of the flood narrative would've conceived of a multi-tiered universe, something like this diagram:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/308/OTcosmos.jpg

Since the author was the creator, it makes no sense to claim that the ignorance of humans at the time means anything. Unless, of course, you discount the revelatory nature of scripture all together.

[Jedidiah]

Nothing in the Biblical account says that this was a recognizably unusual rain.

Surely they'd also have experience of torrential downpours (that cause flash floods) and also wellsprings. I don't think it's as simplistic as saying they distinguished they opening of the heavens from God using nature to inundate the world.

[whag]

Nothing in the Biblical account says that this was a recognizably unusual rain.

Except that it was worldwide and lasted 40 days.

[Catholicity]

I think you misunderstand me, so I beg your indulgence here. I'm not saying that Greg prevents conversions because he holds a few weirdo views. Rather, I'm saying that his careless apprehension of reality reflects on his entire grasp of knowledge theory. It's my understanding that a theologian or any faith representative must be equipped with a sophisticated understanding of how things are known, so they can responsibly guide people to the kingdom with the least amount of friction. Basic belief being hard enough, that's his primary responsibility as a shepherd.

His inability to process reality is repellent to any smart skeptic. Imagine one of Laurie's impressionable congregants who might, after church, confidently repeat her pastor's climatological belief during an evangelistic conversation with a skeptic. Education would preempt that opportunity for the skeptic to embarrass her, possibly introducing a nagging doubt. For whatever reason, Laurie hasn't considered this.

It's irresponsible, especially given the low cost of educating oneself, which he's literally had decades to do.

Whag, I have indulged you now please indulge me. Please step out of the closed thinking you have and think about psychological schema development, and throw in a bit of Piaget and add the stages of Moral Development. Realize that not everyone reaches the most flexible stages for many reasons, and it can be brain functions, genetics, thought process, use of the brain etc. (I just had a refresher on development here too) for whatever reason Greg Laurie has understood this portion of scripture currently to the best of his ability. It could be that later in his life his own schema will expand and he will accomodate and assimilate the new data and be able to expand his moral and religious development to be more flexible. But most humans are black and white. For now this is the best he can do. Perhaps you could expand your own thinking and appreciate that this is where he is, Its not a lack of refusal to educate but part of the limitations of the human mind then. You don't know why, and neither do I. Rather than dismiss it as "on purpose" Tell yourself that "Mr. Laurie understands this to the best of his ability," and appreciate what you
like about him, as opposed to being critical of what you believe is the deficit. If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you then there are plenty on this forum who will be happy to give you a fresh non literal perspective on a non global flood Myself Rogue, Oxmixmudd etc. who are still Christians though I can appreciate myself the difficulty in encountering questions on the literalness of the Bible

[Jedidiah]

Except that it was worldwide and lasted 40 days.

They could not know that it was world wide (I do not think it was world wide in any case - not as we would think world wide today.), nor could they know how long it would last.

[Wildflower]

Whag, I have indulged you now please indulge me. Please step out of the closed thinking you have and think about psychological schema development, and throw in a bit of Piaget and add the stages of Moral Development. Realize that not everyone reaches the most flexible stages for many reasons, and it can be brain functions, genetics, thought process, use of the brain etc. (I just had a refresher on development here too) for whatever reason Greg Laurie has understood this portion of scripture currently to the best of his ability. It could be that later in his life his own schema will expand and he will accomodate and assimilate the new data and be able to expand his moral and religious development to be more flexible. But most humans are black and white. For now this is the best he can do. Perhaps you could expand your own thinking and appreciate that this is where he is, Its not a lack of refusal to educate but part of the limitations of the human mind then. You don't know why, and neither do I. Rather than dismiss it as "on purpose" Tell yourself that "Mr. Laurie understands this to the best of his ability," and appreciate what you
like about him, as opposed to being critical of what you believe is the deficit. If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you then there are plenty on this forum who will be happy to give you a fresh non literal perspective on a non global flood Myself Rogue, Oxmixmudd etc. who are still Christians though I can appreciate myself the difficulty in encountering questions on the literalness of the Bible

I remember what Whag said in the OP: "If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true."

It's not a matter of a personal preference of ideas...its a matter of teaching something potentially disastrous to the faith. I know first hand the truth of what Whag is saying.