For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

[URAVIP2ME]

Well, I don't really agree with taking things on faith, especially when my brain tells me there's something wrong with this picture. I don't think that details don't matter. They're EXACTLY what makes me question a literal interpretation of the Bible. To me, it raises red flags to have to just believe things that make no sense.

I find there is a difference between ' blind faith ' (credulity) and the faith that Jesus taught.
Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures as the basis for his faith, his confidence, his trust in Scripture.
Details did matter to Jesus because Jesus did expound or explain his statements.
Remember: Jesus' illustrative stories or parables were 'Not literal' happenings but creating a word picture in our mind to help remember what he was teaching. Plus, today's world scene is just as worded at Luke 21:11.
Jesus was Not teaching that God is responsible for today's ' great ' earthquakes, but teaching us that such ' great ' earthquakes would be happening or occurring before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
Since man's long history shows that man has dominated man to man's hurt and injury then to me the 'RED flag' is that if there would be No divine involvement into mankind's affairs that man would continue to bring ruing to Earth, instead as Revelation 11:18 B states that God will bring to ruin those ruining Earth. God will have Jesus step in to rid the Earth of wickedness as per Psalms 92:7 that the wicked will be 'destroyed forever' thus allowing for coming Peace on Earth.

 

[Grandliseur]

I sometimes would rather talk to an atheist because some have inquiring minds that want to know.
Whereas some so-called Christians just want to believe in a burning forever of people, or a false trinity concept.

Very true. In death, all cease to exist in my reality. The Trinity is not part of my belief system. Still, I am not a JW. Their dogma is flawed but differently from the flaws of the other churches.

It seems to me that each person exists in his own reality, not quite what others think is reality, this goes for believers and atheists alike, as I see it. We are also very limited in our impression of reality. There is the immediate reality where you live, but just two miles out, you have no idea what is going on, and in the world, everything is related by others whom you have to trust to believe it actually happened. For all this, I might be living in a Zoo where I have been given the impression that things are real, but really aren't. But, I don't believe so; after all, I have been around the globe and lived in several distant places. Still, scripture to an extend tells us that the entire globe is a theatrical spectacle -- a big Zoo for the ones upstairs to enjoy.

Unfortunately, the same flaws that believers have, atheists have. Perhaps, they are human after all! That remains to be proven, and I just read that scientifically nothing can be proven.

If you should want a good video on the flood, the one posted here for you is very good and convincing. I will say though that in some things, I cannot agree with Prof. Walter. I also posted one very good one on the Exodus. Surely believers will have fun with that also.

Link: >102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV<

 

[Deeje]

Let's explore that thought for a moment. I know you probably won't fully get this, but I'll put it out there for you. What was that fruit, actually? Have you explored that thought? What did that fruit represent? What did it signify in our human experience? What did it represent? What did it symbolize? What does it mean to us in our current life experience? What does it point to beyond this simple world we think we understand with our paltry minds?

You sound as if you believe I am some kind of gullible child....stuck in the words of Genesis with no understanding of their deeper meaning.....seriously....who gave you the impression that your interpretation is correct to anyone but yourself? and you talk about ego! Can I ask who else believes what you believe?

The fruit was edible, probably of a variety not seen elsewhere in the garden, since the woman noticed that it appeared to be good for food. It was not poisonous or damaging in and of itself. It simply represented what belonged to God and the theft of it was serious enough to warrant the death penalty. It was their disobedience and complete disrespect for what belonged to their Creator alone that earned them the stated penalty. But "how" the penalty was to be implemented was not stated. Did Adam know the full consequences of what his disobedience would mean for his children? Did it matter? Was he warned about going to "hell" or even told about "heaven"?

Why did God forbid them to take the "knowledge of good and evil" for themselves? Why was it kept from them?

Can you answer those questions?

There is much symbolism in the literal understanding. Nothing is lost and all fully explainable if you study what Genesis says and understand the Jewish perspective of the writer. Ancient Jews had no belief in "hell" as Christendom teaches it. They had no fear of death in any afterlife.

What is that fruit? Symbolically it means in essence our awakening to our existential state of being. In eating that fruit, we recognize our separateness, as the story tells, as you know. So that moment in which we realize we are alone, isolated, there is the terror death. We do not feel connected with God. We fear death. We fear isolation. We fear hell.

"it means in essence our awakening to our existential state of being."

What sort of alien mumbo-jumbo is that?
What is this "separateness" that you speak of...and what caused it?

"that moment in which we realize we are alone, isolated, there is the terror death. We do not feel connected with God. We fear death. We fear isolation. We fear hell".

Where will I find any of that in scripture as opposed to what I might find running around inside your head?
Again, where will I find anyone who believes what you believe? (1 Corinthians 1:10)

We don't fear "hell" because there is no such place....what humans fear is dying. Think of all the horrible ways that humans can die....death itself is nothing to fear, any more than a restful sleep. There is a reason why humans are the only creatures in existence who can contemplate their own death and imagine losing the people they love. There is no programming for any of that.

The whole story of Adam and Eve speaks to that innate foreboding in ourselves of dying and facing our own immortality, that we are finite, and not infinite. It is at that moment we reach out across that chasm of isolation to realize that we were never apart from it. It is at that moment we realize God. It is at that moment we realize what to us is our salvation.

"that innate foreboding in ourselves of dying and facing our own immortality, that we are finite, and not infinite."

Since man is mortal but was created to live forever, do you understand the difference between everlasting life and immortality? If you did, you would see how ridiculous that statement is.
Can you explain why we would be created with an expectation to go on living if God had created us to die? Did he make us with a "use by" date? Were we programmed to degenerate into old age, sickness and death?

If humans were created to be immortal, then the penalty for eating the fruit could never have been implemented. Immortals cannot die.

The entire story of Adam of Eve is our story. However it happened, whether through natural evolution where we came to realize our separation from nature in our humanity which led to a deeper realization of our prior connection with this world which birthed us. Or via some magical story of supernatural occurrences; a man and a woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere in a magical garden. It doesn't matter. It still speaks the same truth.

Is this the part where "believers" somehow sell out to evolution but still claim to believe in God? A foot in both camps? A bit of spiritual insurance perhaps? We have to make a choice....so which is it?

Why do we hear about "magic" in connection with creation? There was no magic. Creation was carried out over eons of time in a slow and meticulous way. Each act of creation was a deliberate crafting of a particular creature, fully equipped to generate more of its own kind. It was nothing like a literal 7 day affair.....Genesis does not limit the "days" to 24 hour periods. "Creationism" has a lot to answer for because it is not taught in scripture.

Try to understand, beyond your own understanding. It's a beautiful world beyond the doors of your church of thought.

And the doors of your own "church of thought".....how many others have walked through those doors?
Are you alone? If so can I ask why? What is it that makes you think you are right? What is there to back up what you believe?

Closing your mind to the story of creation leads to closing your mind about Noah and the reasons for the flood. They are closely connected, real events that affect us to this day.

 

[illykitty]

I guess it depends on who is raising the flags. I don't trust the men of science to be entirely truthful when it comes to supporting their pet theory. How do you know that what they are theorizing is correct? Their "facts" can all change with the next "scientific" discovery. The Bible has never changed because God doesn't. If you have strong faith, there is nothing that can kill it. If your faith is weak, it can easily be swayed by the next convincing argument.

But that's exactly what's wrong with religion and beliefs. If some data comes that disproves your ideas, then you shouldn't double down but instead change and adapt. Grow and continue to grow as time goes on.

The reason why I trust science, or the scientific method, is that it is self-correcting. Facts are simply how we understand things currently, hence why it does change over time. We try our best to study and understand reality and it's not an easy task, mistakes will be made along the way and corrections or additions will be needed.The pursuit of knowledge is never ending and it's possible we'll never discover everything or that certain things will be left uncertain. But how does this make science something untrustworthy or not worth pursuing?

I'd rather have some uncertainty and honesty to say "this was wrong or incomplete" or "I don't know yet how this works" than to trust something that claims set in stone truths. Like this, we can cultivate curiosity about how the world works and get closer to finding how things actually work. Basically I'm comfortable with things changing and with things evolving, I simply update my views when I find them to be incorrect.

 

[Deeje]

But that's exactly what's wrong with religion and beliefs. If some data comes that disproves your ideas, then you shouldn't double down but instead change and adapt. Grow and continue to grow as time goes on.

No data has come along that has disproven my beliefs. I have examined the evidence for myself and find it unconvincing.

If I need to double down and change and adapt, then I have no truth. Truth does not need to adapt or change otherwise it never was truth at all.

The reason why I trust science, or the scientific method, is that it is self-correcting. Facts are simply how we understand things currently, hence why it does change over time. We try our best to study and understand reality and it's not an easy task, mistakes will be made along the way and corrections or additions will be needed.

I believe that science has indoctrinated people just as much as religion has....in fact I would go so far as to say that to some people science IS their religion. A current understanding of the way things are is not to be confused with a fact. Facts do not change because they don't need to. The truth never changes.

The pursuit of knowledge is never ending and it's possible we'll never discover everything or that certain things will be left uncertain. But how does this make science something untrustworthy or not worth pursuing?

If science discovers something that overturns a previously held belief, then was was previously taught was never the truth to begin with."Might be" or "could be" should never be understood as "must be" unless you have proof, otherwise it is a belief, which is different to a fact.

I'd rather have some uncertainty and honesty to say "this was wrong or incomplete" or "I don't know yet how this works" than to trust something that claims set in stone truths.

Now this made me smile....you basically say that religion is wrong because it can't be certain about what it teaches and then say that you can accept science for the same reason....

I would rather be certain of my beliefs than walk a tightrope of uncertainty, never being sure about anything. I could not live like that. Besides, a relationship with the Creator is very a very personal thing. If one has never experienced God's hand in their lives, I guess it would be very easy to dismiss him. He has guided me all my life. I trust God, but I don't trust men.

Like this, we can cultivate curiosity about how the world works and get closer to finding how things actually work. Basically I'm comfortable with things changing and with things evolving, I simply update my views when I find them to be incorrect.

I have a great curiosity about the world that God created. I have learned many things that science has taught me, but when it comes to their interpretation of how life arose and changed over millions of years, I see nothing but supposition and guesswork. I understand that living things adapt to changes in environment and food sources, but to suggest that adaptation leaps outside of what science can test, is to promote something that cannot possibly be proven. Unlike other scientific theories, macro-evolution has no facts to substantiate its validity.

 

[Windwalker]

True, God "IS" love everywhere, and the proof is because God is having the good news message about His Kingdom government of Daniel 2:44 being proclaimed world wide as it is being done today as per Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.

That's not proof of the Love that is God. That's proof that men try to convert others into their ways of thinking about God for the sake of control and greater members for the churches of their own thoughts. That's more proof of the human ego.

God is Love. God speaks for Himself. When you love another, you are speaking that Love that is God. You don't need to make up theological arguments for the Perfectly Obvious.

As far as other culture's myths, the reason they might seem like Scripture is because we can trace mankind's family tree back to its base at Genesis 10 with Nimrod in ancient Babylon. Even astrology traces back to Babylon.
As the people migrated out of ancient Babylon they took with them their religious stories and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great. They mixed or fused the Genesis Flood account with their ideas, and that is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious stories and concepts.
None of which makes the Bible's account as wrong but makes their version as similar but Not accurate.

Of course that entire story itself is a myth. The facts that we have seen that speak of our origins looks considerably less magical than all of that. But my point is, you're just making it up that your adopted myths are 'better' than others, more "accurate" as you somehow claim with zero proof to support it, simply because they are the ones you believe in. Yours are equally as non-scientific as every other myth out there.

The only thing they really are is meaningful to you. That doesn't make them more accurate, but rather more practical and useful for you as a way of understanding your world, being part of the culture where the Christian myths dominate. If you were part of another culture with other myths, those myths would speak to you better.

Because it is 'a BIG world out there' is why God is having the international proclaiming about Matthew 24:14 being done today on such a vast global scale. Modern technology has allowed for rapid Bible translation so that people even remote areas of Earth can Now have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.

This too is a mythic structure your religious group has constructed for you to imagine yourself and their church as somehow part of some grand master plan of God that has you conveniently on the winning team.

When we learn about other cultures, we learn about our own, and consequently about ourselves.

 

[whirlingmerc]

same ballpark

The flood was real.. Radio dating of coal samples around the world in various layers of supposed greatly different geological age don't support the claimed long ages and Radio dating of diamond claimed hundred od millions of years old appear just a bit older than the coal.... that leans toward geological layers laid down in a flood and diamonds forming only a bit earlier

 

[whirlingmerc]

same ballpark

I love those fossils that could only be made in a catastrophic flood.

the kamacazi Ichthyosaur with nose buried a million years older than the tail? I don't think so... animals fossilized while eating another animal? Soft tissue animals like Jellyfish fossilized ... those speak of a flood and a catastrophic world wide one

Trees that cut across fossil layers and petrified trees with no root balls as if uprooted and became upright floaters then fossilized... and all the claimed petrified forests appear from the same time

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The jury seems to be out on this question among those who identify as Christians.....so was the flood a real event or was it just a dramatized myth with a message?

God commanded Noah: “Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree.”—Genesis 6:14.

Some might be familiar with children's storybook illustrations like this...

But what is exactly is an ark?

This ark was not a ship, as some assume. It had neither bow nor stern, keel nor rudder—no bends or curves. It was basically a great chest, or box.

More like this....

God gave Noah the precise dimensions of the ark, some details regarding its design, and directions to coat it inside and out with tar. And he told Noah why: “Here I am bringing the deluge of waters upon the earth . . . Everything that is in the earth will expire.” However, Jehovah gave this direction to Noah: “You must go into the ark, you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.” Noah was also to bring representatives of all kinds of animals. Only those aboard the ark could survive the coming Deluge!—Genesis 6:17-20.

Have we ever stopped to imagine the size of this vessel?
This replica built to Biblical specifications gives us some idea....

Noah faced a gigantic task. This ark was to be enormous—some 437 feet (133 m) long, 73 feet (22 m) wide, and 44 feet (13 m) tall. It was far larger than the largest seagoing wooden ships built even in modern times. Did Noah back off from this assignment, complain about its challenges, or alter the details to make it easier on himself? The Bible answers: “Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so.”—Genesis 6:22.

The work took decades, perhaps 40 to 50 years. There were trees to fell, logs to haul, and beams to hew, shape, and join. The ark was to have three stories, or decks, a number of compartments, and a door in the side. Evidently, there were windows along the top, as well as a roof that likely peaked in the middle with a slight pitch so that water would run off.—Genesis 6:14-16.

On completion of this assignment God told Noah....“Go, you and all your household, into the ark.” At the same time, God told Noah to take all the varieties of animals into the ark—by sevens in the case of the clean ones, fit for sacrificial use, and the rest by twos.—Genesis 7:1-3.

It is assumed by many that just two of every animas that God brought to Noah went on board the ark, but animals designated as "clean" (i.e. suitable for sacrifice and later for food) were taken in by sevens. That was three breeding pairs and one for sacrifice (which is what Noah did upon disembarking from the ark to thank his God for preserving his family alive through such a cataclysmic event.)

It must have been an unforgettable sight. From the horizon they streamed in by the hundreds—walking, flying, crawling, waddling, lumbering—all in a dizzying variety of sizes, shapes, and dispositions. We need not imagine poor Noah trying to corral, wrangle, or somehow cajole all those wild animals into entering the confined space of the ark. The account says that “they went in . . . to Noah inside the ark.”—Genesis 7:9.

And since dinosaurs were long extinct before man came on the scene, there were no dinosaurs on the ark.

Some skeptics might ask: ‘How could such a thing happen? And how could all those animals coexist peacefully in a confined space?’ Consider this: Is it really beyond the power of the Creator of the universe to control his animal creations, even render them tame and docile if needed? Remember, Jehovah is the God who parted the Red Sea and made the sun stand still. Could he not carry out every event described in Noah’s account?

Excerpts from 2013 WATCHTOWER. Pics from Google

A myth, probably based on a real event or events. My personal preferred candidate is the Black Sea Inundation, although there are plenty of other contenders, depending who you ask.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The flood was real.. Radio dating of coal samples around the world in various layers of supposed greatly different geological age don't support the claimed long ages and Radio dating of diamond claimed hundred od millions of years old appear just a bit older than the coal.... that leans toward geological layers laid down in a flood and diamonds forming only a bit earlier

Got a link to any such data?

 

[Windwalker]

You sound as if you believe I am some kind of gullible child....stuck in the words of Genesis with no understanding of their deeper meaning.....seriously....who gave you the impression that your interpretation is correct to anyone but yourself? and you talk about ego! Can I ask who else believes what you believe?

Who gave you the impression that I think I have the one and only correct interpretation? It certainly wasn't me. I was extremely specific in my other post taking you to task for thinking you do. I have said that are thousands of ways to understand it, not just one, such as you assume about the one's you've adopted. So, put your ego stick down in trying to judge me like this. Read my words, and consider them rather than jumping into this pile of your own imagination.

The fruit was edible, probably of a variety not seen elsewhere in the garden, since the woman noticed that it appeared to be good for food.

So, it has to be literal fruit? It has to be a literal woman? It has to be a literal talking snake? Why?

Why in what I have presented, which you may or may not have spent the time trying to read and follow, have no validity in your mind? Can you repeat back what you think I've been saying, and then demonstrate where it doesn't have truth to it? Can you do that?

It was not poisonous or damaging in and of itself. It simply represented what belonged to God and the theft of it was serious enough to warrant the death penalty. It was their disobedience and complete disrespect for what belonged to their Creator alone that earned them the stated penalty. But "how" the penalty was to be implemented was not stated. Did Adam know the full consequences of what his disobedience would mean for his children? Did it matter? Was he warned about going to "hell" or even told about "heaven"?

Why did God forbid them to take the "knowledge of good and evil" for themselves? Why was it kept from them?

Can you answer those questions?

Yes. It's all layers of the mythology, which you have inserted your meanings into. I don't read it literally, so the symbols contained in it can go all over the place in meaning. I've offered my reading of it, or I should say one of many readings I could offer, and you didn't respond to any of my points, but just repeated your own views.

There is much symbolism in the literal understanding.

Do you think there is more than one valid meaning in them? Yes, or no?

What sort of alien mumbo-jumbo is that?
What is this "separateness" that you speak of...and what caused it?

Be careful. Your Christianity is showing, friend. I do not speak "mumbo-jumbo". That you can't follow, simply means you lack understanding. You're not an idiot, and neither am I.

Now, that you don't understand what "separateness" means, is to me rather stunning, since all Christians understand that "sin" separates us from God. Our "separateness" is our state of being alone, not-one-with-God, nor with each other. The entire NT is all about reconciliation to God, not being separate any more. I'm surprised I needed to explain that to you, actually.

"that moment in which we realize we are alone, isolated, there is the terror death. We do not feel connected with God. We fear death. We fear isolation. We fear hell".

Where will I find any of that in scripture as opposed to what I might find running around inside your head?

On all of it's pages. Can't you see it? And what's furthermore, I am actually speaking from experience, and I understand what that is and what it looks like. It doesn't sound like your church offers much insights for your consideration. But I suppose based on your attitudes, if they did you'd just arrogantly assume it's all "mumbo-jumbo" because you can't follow it. Your way of thinking has to be right, because it's how you think about it. Any contradiction to that, is just nonsense to you, it seems. That's not very healthy.

I'm not going to respond any further to you, considering the snarky approach you are taking with me. I don't consider that your faith is sincere. If it were, there would be other fruits being shown.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If some data comes that disproves your ideas....

"Disproves" is a strong word! 'Indicates otherwise' might be better.

Do you ever watch Perry Mason? All the evidence is against his client, yet a fact (a truth) is uncovered that vindicates the client. But it requires digging for it, and keeping an open mind, willing to entertain ideas that oppose what you believe or were taught.

Facts are simply how we understand things currently, hence why it does change over time.

Is that really truth then? Or just evidence that points in a certain direction? Because facts are permanent.

Example: radioactive dating, used to determine ages of relics and natural items. Apparently, considered an exact science...but now, much of it is in doubt:

Do solar neutrinos affect nuclear decay on Earth? - physicsworld.com

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I've offered my reading of it, or I should say one of many readings I could offer, and you didn't respond to any of my points, but just repeated your own views.

You apparently don't understand why? Taking the entire event as symbolic, negates any need for Jesus' sacrifice! It was "blood for blood", literally!

Grief

 

[Windwalker]

You apparently don't understand why? Taking the entire event as symbolic, negates any need for Jesus' sacrifice! It was "blood for blood", literally!

Grief

No it does not. Why does a real Adam and a real Eve have to exist for the human condition to be what it is? It's the human condition that Jesus addresses. It's the human condition that Adam and Eve symbolize. It doesn't matter if we made them up to talk about our humanness. Adam and Eve may never have existed (what I believe), but our condition does. That's not in dispute.

It's our humanness that's real. That's where the literalness should be focused - on the reality of our condition. It matters not if these figures of our stories actually never existed. Our condition exists, and you could symbolize that many different ways, including a fabled garden with figures we put into it to think about ourselves through.

Now do you follow?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Another relevant issue that many ask, is: "Where did all that water go?" Apparently, it's still here! Almost everyone knows that the Earth's surface is 70% covered with water, with some very deep areas! In fact, if we were to smooth out the Earth like a cue ball -- to flatten the mountains and fill in the oceans -- water would cover the Earth to a depth of 1.7 miles! That is a lot of water! So then, was the antediluvian Earth less mountainous? [/QUOTE0

Irrelevant. If there were enough water on earth to cover all land whatever its topography, the the ark could never have made landfall since dry land would not exist.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Simply put, it is inherited sin, passed on to everyone descended from Adam and Eve. Which is everyone. Why do you think Romans 5:12 says that?

Genesis 3:20.

Have a good day, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@It Aint Necessarily So wrote:

"Irrelevant. If there were enough water on earth to cover all land whatever its topography, the the ark could never have made landfall since dry land would not exist."


Oh, grief!!!!
You should read the entire post, before you comment! Lol.
(You've been guilty of that with others.)

Proverbs 18:13

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....how could he have a boat big enough for two of each animals?

You might like this:
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Smithsonian had an article, too.
I'll post it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@illykitty, here you go:

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science | Smithsonian

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Deeje]

No it does not. Why does a real Adam and a real Eve have to exist for the human condition to be what it is?

Does God create defective junk on purpose? What is the "human condition"? And why would he create creatures in his own image who are drawn to sin?

It's the human condition that Jesus addresses. It's the human condition that Adam and Eve symbolize. It doesn't matter if we made them up to talk about our humanness. Adam and Eve may never have existed (what I believe), but our condition does. That's not in dispute.

The law of 'cause and effect' kicks in, does it not? What caused the first humans to sin when they were not created to be sinful? Why did Jesus have to be sinless to pay the ransom? What is a ransom? It is the price paid to free a captive. The human race are captives to sin and death....a condition that was caused by Adam and his wife. With no other legacy to pass onto their children and no human who could redeem them, this is what makes Jesus our "redeemer".
Do you even understand how redemption works? Why didn't God just fix the problem? He is the Creator after all and can do whatever is necessary to remedy "our condition". The way he chose to do so tells us a lot about him and us, if we understand why he has proceeded the way he has. The wisdom he demonstrates in his method will ensure that sin never again mars the life he planned for us in the beginning.
Humans are made for the earth and the earth for humans. It was never in his first purpose for us to die or to live anywhere but here. If Adam and his wife were not the first humans, then none of that makes sense.

It's our humanness that's real. That's where the literalness should be focused - on the reality of our condition. It matters not if these figures of our stories actually never existed. Our condition exists, and you could symbolize that many different ways, including a fabled garden with figures we put into it to think about ourselves through.

You miss the most important parts of why we are in "our condition" when death was never supposed to be part of that "condition". Even thousands of years later, death is still as foreign to humankind as it ever was. We fight to live and have an expectation for life to go on...indefinitely, despite the fact that we know death is inevitable, nothing makes it easier to bear when we contemplate it for ourselves or our loved ones.

Now do you follow?

Apparently you do not follow what the Bible says. So unless you do, all you have is your own interpretation. Who or what is your authority? Who or what gives you the basis for your beliefs? Who shares your opinion? God will lead but we must follow. He has no need of those who think independently of him. All he has ever asked of man is obedience....not because he is a dictator, but because he is our Father and loves us. He knows what is best for us, even when we think we know better.