Is the Genesis flood account plagiarized?

Floyd Rogers

Let’s consider some universal things.  For example, everyone eats. When ancient people learned how to write, they recorded stories about every part of life including stories about people eating. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to conclude that whomever was the first to make a written record of people eating must have invented eating? Is this rather absurd assumption any different than the presupposition made by those who claim the flood account originated with an author that pre-dates Genesis.

Other cultures may have written down flood stories that pre-date our oldest copies of Genesis, but this only indicates they were the first to write it down.  After all, Genesis records a flood that happened when the earliest humans walked the earth, possibly before anyone had written language. Isn’t it interesting that cultures from the Mesopotamians to the Mayans have written stories of a great flood? It’s what you would expect to find the flood were an oral tradition handed down to all descendants no matter how far apart they eventually settled.

What are your thoughts?

Is God obligated to heal disease?


I was asked if God could cure a person with social anxiety disorder.  I was a bit surprised when they laughed at my response.  God can cure any disorder, but does one need to be cured of anxiety to be in God’s will?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we will be without pain or suffering; at least not before the second coming.  Consider that Paul asked God three times to take away his thorn in the flesh.  God responded by telling Paul, “My grace is sufficient…” Paul had what he needed even without being delivered from his thorn in the flesh. In fact, Paul went on to write, that he would delight in weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions and difficulties.  I believe 2 Corinthians tells us Paul’s weaknesses led him to depend on God, and thus, made him stronger in spite of his initial assumption that he needed to have his thorn removed.

Can someone ask why God cannot do such-and-such without assuming they know what God should do?

I’m very interested in reading your responses. Please post them below or on the station’s Facebook page.

Hate crimes charges filed after man screams obscenities and exposes himself at church in Edmonton

David Ingram, Music Director & Reporter

The Archdiocese of Edmonton Thursday issued a statement announcing that charges have been filed against an individual who disrupted Mass on December 13 at Santa Maria Goretti Church. Edmonton police have charged the individual, who is not named, with mischief to religious property. The charge is a hate crime. The suspect is also charged with mischief.

The website of the Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton says police have banned the suspect from all archdiocesan property.

The Archdiocese is not releasing further comment while the case remains before the courts.

Is it true that atheism is a conclusion rather than a belief?

Floyd Rogers – Texas Gospel Volunteer, Christian writer

An atheist writer once opined: Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief. Is there merit to this non-believer’s words? To answer this question we need to be clear on a few things.  What is the difference between “a conclusion” and Christian faith. What is Christian faith? It is also important to ask from where does Christian faith come? Let’s consider these things and determine if the writer’s conclusion is reasoned.

Let’s use Webster for the definition of “conclusion.” It seems to be the most, if not one of the most, widely-accepted dictionaries. Webster defines a conclusion as a reasoned judgement.  I’ll concede that one could reach atheism as a conclusion depending on what evidence he or she has. To be clear, I did not say it is a correct conclusion. One must rule out the source of Christian faith or not be aware of its source, before he or she can call the writer’s conclusion reasoned. So what is Christian faith?

I’ve watched debates where non-believers reject a Biblical definition of faith while accusing Christians of re-defining words to win an argument. But a Biblical definition is the only one that matters if we are talking about Christianity and what Christians believe. The book of Hebrews tells us, “…faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” This is part of the needed information. This definition says nothing about the source of our faith. It speaks only to its definition. So from where does Christian faith come?

Saving faith is a gift from God. Ephesians says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God…”  For a person to reasonably conclude that there is no God they must reasonably reject all evidence of God. They must have a reason to reject the idea that saving faith is a posteriori knowledge (knowledge from experience) that comes as a gift from God. If one does not have a reason to reject this evidence, then they have only an idea or a belief. It is not sound logic to say, “God does not exist therefore he could not give you knowledge of His existence,” without first demonstrating there is no God.  Let me restate that a different way: A logical argument can’t use the premise “there is no God” if the conclusion is “there is no God.” That’s circular logic.  At the center of all of this is the difference between saying “I don’t know” and having a reasonable conclusion.  If an atheist says “I’m simply not convinced…” or “I don’t know,” then they have not reached a conclusion.  

As of this writing, Webster online defines atheism as, “a lack of belief or strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.” An atheist who doesn’t know if God exists has not reached a conclusion. An atheist who says he or she strongly disbelieves in God has a belief; that is, a belief that God does not exist.  The writers claim that atheism is a conclusion is either based on limited evidence, rejection of evidence without reason, or a belief.

What are your thoughts?

Is it wrong to be wealthy?

FLOYD ROGERS – Texas Gospel Volunteer, Christian writer

A YouTube video titled, “Why most rich people will end up in hell” was brought up in discussion. For full disclosure: I did not watch the video.  I’ve found that a person usually doesn’t really know what they’re talking about if they can’t make a point without telling me to watch someone else’s video. But the title piqued my interest.  After all, the Book of Matthew does say, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

The Bible uses a lot of metaphor. Its books are written in the common-person’s language. People back then were not that different from modern folks who use metaphors like saying my car died on the way to work.  We know the person who says this doesn’t believe their car was alive.  I think Matthew is using a similar metaphor here. I don’t think he’s saying it’s impossible for a rich person to go to heaven, but that it can be very hard for a rich person to do so.  But why?

Our redemption is a gift from God.  We don’t earn it, but we can reject it.  We can also allow things to become more important than God and money can become a stumbling block. Too, other types of wealth can cause us problems. Consider that the book of Matthew says, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…” It’s not wrong to love your family, but it is wrong to love people more than God.  The point I’m making is that a thing does not have to be intrinsically evil to become a stumbling block. Could this be why Matthew records Jesus asking, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?”

What are your thoughts?