true religion

quote:

---

well first of all winnie the pooh is fiction based were as the bible is fact based.

---

Winnie the Pooh is, but the oldest Scriptures in the world are the Vedas, not the Hebrew Scriptures. Gandhi believed in the Vedas. His favorite was the Baghavad Gita (please excuse the spelling, as it's probably wrong). He lived by it, and he taught the power of truth and resisting evil without violence.Surely almost no one lived as changed a life as Mohandes K. Gandhi. He transformed the world around him, transformed his friends, formed communities, and his teachings, which were not his own, but based on the Gita, still touch numerous lives.So now, exactly why should your friend's changed life prove anything more than Gandhi's? Should we all become Hindu?You say Jesus died for our sins. The Hindus say Jesus went to India and leaned his teachings from other Sadhus and returned to Israel as a Sadhu, even an avatar, with teachings he got from the Hindi in India.Why should I believe you over Gandhi? Why should I choose the Bible over the Gita?

quote:

---

This is not the case for the Genesis stories. There's significant evidence that they do not represent true historical narratives. Even in the text itself. (If I tell you a story that starts with "once upon a time", everyone who hears it knows that story didn't really happen. There are elements in the story of genesis that are the same kind of indicators.)

---

Really? I'm a little surprised I've never heard this. Can you give examples or a reference where I can read about this? The part about the "once upon a time" indicators.

Since the topic is true religion, it seems on topic to post what I'm about to say.Your standard "born again" Christian goes on an on about how salvation is "not by works." Your typical skeptic will point out Romans 3:28 and James 2:24, which even Martin Luther considered impossible to reconcile. One says, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law," and the other says, "We see, then, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."I don't agree with the "faith only" view of salvation that is popular among "born again" Christians, but I don't agree that Romans 3:28 and James 2:24 contradict.I got the following from my own reading of the Bible, and was pleased to find that the early church fathers agreed with me! It was pretty exciting to find that kind of confirmation.This still leaves difficulties, because such a subject is difficult and several authors cover it in the New Testament, but this does explain why Paul can say on one page that faith is a gift from God apart from works and on the next that only those who avoid the works of the flesh will have an inheritance in Christ's kingdom (Eph 2; Eph 5). Plus, it's pretty straightforward and simple.There are two "justifications" or "salvations" being discussed in the New Testament. Don't be surprised by this. Romans 5:9 mentions both, a "having been" saved and a "shall be" saved. One is the time of being born again, believing and being baptized. That entrance to the faith is completely apart from works, by faith only. Believe and come; be baptized and enter. That's the "having been" saved mentioned in Romans 5:9.The other is going to heaven, passing the judgment. That is by works, as the New Testament says over and over again (Matt 16:27, as pointed out in earlier posts, Rom 2:5-8, Gal 5:19-21, Gal 6:8-10, Rev 3:4,5, and many others y'all can find without me).I got started on this because I found a very early Christian letter (around AD 110, in my opinion) by Polycarp that says salvation is by obedience to commands and then a couple paragraphs latel says it's not by works. I liked that, because Paul writes the same way in Galatians and Ephesians.The Letter to Diognetus (same time frame) finally put it in total perspective for me: "By the grace of God, we who were not able to enter the kingdom would be given the power to be able." (paraphrased pretty badly, but this is close.)I think this all seems obviously true, once you think about it. Born-againers aren't allowed to believe this, of course, but I think the honest skeptic has to accept it as explaining Rom 3:28 and Jam 2:24. James is clearly talking about a future justification involving the judgment, and Paul is clearly talking about a past justification involving sins being forgiven.

quote:

---

The author argued that the 'faith' meant should not be the 'blind faith' we all know and despise, but something more like 'faithfulness' as in the faithfulness of lovers.

---

I'm no Greek scholar, but I have taken enough Greek to know that the word for obey (peitho) and the word for believe (pisto) are very similar in Greek (maybe even different forms of the same word?). John 3:36 uses believe and obey in a sentence that obviously relates them, and so does Hebrews 3:18,19, where the KJV's didn't believe in v. 18 is apeitheo, and the unbelief in v. 19 is apistia. John 3:36 is similar.So I'd agree there's a stronger meaning for pisto (verb) and pistis (noun), at least based on my meager Greek knowledge. That is some of the reasoning behind it, though. Of course, that doesn't contradict the things I mentioned in my post.Of course, am I now casually discussing the Biblical view of faith with an atheist/agnostic? That feels a bit odd.

quote:

---

No more odd than casually discussing the Egyptian view of the afterlife, for example.

---

You win. You sure picked the right example there. I realize Graham Hancock's research can't be trusted very well, but I was totally fascinated by his comments about the belief that one should "pursue eternal life in the sky by righteousness," which he claims is common to all ancient religions, even early Egyptian beliefs. So the thought of casually discussing the Egyptian view of the afterlife is fascinating to me, and I'm not a believer in the Egyptian gods.Good point.