Jar's belief statement- Part 2

Of course, a parable is supposed to have an inexorable conclusion.It would have little educational value if it left a lot of plot-threads hanging. We're not supposed to ask questions about the parable itself.Where the real thinking and real questions are involved is in relating the parable to our lives and our relationship with God. We can only learn from a parable if we ask, "Is it a fair description?" and "How does it relate?" - not by rejecting it out of hand.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Principle Number One: There is no difference between an adopted child and a natural-born child. Refer to Principle Number One. Every child treated as an equal, regardless of what they expected or what was expected of them.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think you're interpreting Matthew 7:13-14 too "narrowly".

quote:

---

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

---

It says "life", not "eternal life".
It says that the right way to live your life is not easy and the easy way is not right.Notice also that it mentions the gate first and then the path. Choose the proper gate first and it will lead you to the proper path.Choose the wrong gate that leads to the easy path - the easy assumption that "you're in" and you don't have to do anything else - and you lessen your chance of finding the true narrow path.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

First, to pass through customs it is not sufficient to say, "I believe that this is Customs and that you are a real Customs Officer." It is necessary to do what is right. You will be judged on what you try to take through and whether or not that tallies with what you declare.Second, it is the Great Customs Officer In The Sky who sets the standards. He is not "just enforcing" something that He has no control over. He can set the standards to let more or less through.If He stops you for not declaring your shoelaces, He is being an asshole.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I tried to tell that to riVeRraT once. I think the exuberance - and even the mischief - is the presence of God's Spirit.But they can only sin when they understand the consequences of what they do - the practical "knowledge of good and evil". Before that they are sin-empty, as they were born.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Is a "sin" a sin if the "sinner" doen't know it's a sin?Is a "sin" something that God arbitrarily decided we shouldn't do?
Or is it something that is bad for us?If we don't impute a sin against us, why would God?
If we recognize that a child "doesn't know any better", why wouldn't God?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Which is why I asked you, "What is a sin?"(Hint: that which is not imputed as a sin might not be a sin.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No. God's law is our law. It was put in place to help us get along with each other.The law is a living thing, meant to be used in our everyday lives. It was never meant to be an "impossible standard". I have challenged you before to back that up scripturally and you have never been able to do so. The law should not makes us "feel condemned". It should make us feel empowered - to do what is right for our fellow man, to do what God wants us to do. Which is why we are well-advised not to judge others: we can not know if they are "better" or "worse" than we are. If salvation had anything to do with belief, the one who says, "I believe" could effectively judge the one who says, "I don't believe." But salvation depends on what we have done (and why we have done it), so only God can judge. So, why do we tell our kids that anything worth having is worth working for? Not preferable at all. Such a "gospel" would allow the vilest people on earth to be saved, just because they believed the "right" thing, while the best people on earth could be condemned.Quite frankly, I'd rather spend eternity with Gandhi and the Dalai Lama than with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not "grace" at all - injustice of the worst sort.Your "gospel" would send Hitler to heaven if he had a death-bed conversion and Gandhi to hell if he didn't. It's equivalent to letting a serial killer go scot-free and executing a schoolgirl for swearing.Not even a remote resemblance to justice. What good is grace without justice? On the contrary, it would be more sensible to "look for" a gospel that makes sense, that has some justice to it. It is only the vilest - and those who consider all human beings to be vile - who look for a "gospel" that absolves them of all responsibility. I'm convinced that I'm more righteous than Hitler. Only an idiotic god would rather have Hitler in heaven than me.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The key phrase there seems to be "remote places" - where nobody can investigate what really happened, as opposed to what was reported by believers.(Interesting that you mention James Randi, since he does explain the "unexplainable". If some "unexplainable" phenomena can be explained, why are you willing to conclude that others are not?)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I wouldn't call it a "religious experience".I also wouldn't call it "unexplainable" - I'd call it "unexplained".
I don't have to explain the difference, do I? I would have had a lot more questions: Was there just a hole where the stump used to be? Or was there no sign that there ever was a tree there? Any roots left? Any "trace" evidence at all? Trail of dirt across the lawn? Insects? Eggs? Did you have the soil tested? Any damage on other nearby trees? Did you consult a tree surgeon? Any tracks - human or vehicle? Did the neighbours notice any strange vehicles? Did you ask the local busybody? Did you look in all the local garbage bins?I could go on and on.I've seen lots of things that I can't explain.
That doesn't make them "unexplainable" - or supernatural.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What a coincidence - so was I. There was no room in the inn.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Immature Christians or immature humans?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I was going to mention it too, so I will:iano may love you for your body, but some of us love you for your brain (too). And anybody who quotes The Simpsons can't be all bad.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC