true religion

quote:

---

show me where it says in the bible i should have faith in animals and not God?

---

Show me on this forum where anyone said you should have faith in animals?We were asking why you took a literal reading of the bible. If you do believe that unicorns and faries exist, (which is different from having faith in them) that's your business. We assumed you didn't. Our mistake.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

' show me where it says in the bible i should have faith in animals and not God?''Do you have faith in unicorns? - mentioned many times in the Bible. Do you have faith in fairies? If not, then we can call you faithless, too.'------------------------------------------------------------------that was the silly question which all the evos have backed ,and i was starting to think evos were intelligent , not if they cant even admitt when they're wrong and carry on with the lame arguement!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fair enough; I spoke too soon. My apologies. To sum up, you believe in unicorns and fairies, but do not have faith in them.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

'Fair enough; I spoke too soon. My apologies.'i accept your apology!at least you are one intelligent evolutionist,despite others who continue their attacks.

A myth is not the same as a lie. The genesis story can be true in what it tells us about the relationship of God and humans - as well as the relationship between a man and a woman - without being a literal account.The thing is, if it's a literal account, if you actually believe that the Genesis stories REALLY happened, you must admit that they would have left significant evidence for their occurance? Things that really happen tend to leave evidence that they happened.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.)There's no reason you can't accept the truth of the thesis of the Genesis story (the need for man's redemption) but not the truth of the events described actually happening.

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.

The seven-day creation week, for one thing. Seven is a number often used in classical literature to suggest mysticism, or an innumerable amount. (This appears in other places in the bible. In the Oddessy, Odysseus spends "seven years" in a place when the story of what happens in that place is clearly fantastic. In parts of the narrative that are more realistic, he spends more normal amounts of time. Clearly the use of the number 7 is to suggest a mystic dimension to his stay at that place.)The number 7 also appears in the story of Cain and Abel, when god marks Cain and commands that if any slay him, his punishment will be "sevenfold". God's not just doing math, here; he's suggesting that the punishment for killing Cain will be innumerably stronger.There's much repetition of phrases, like "And it was so." Repetition is often used in myth to highlight a natural order to things.To the modern reader these aren't as clear as "once upon a time", but to readers of antiquity they would have been clear indicators that they weren't reading history, but myth. Anyway these are just the few I could come up with on a cursory examination, a deeper study could uncover much more.An interesting note: my fiance is working on her thesis, a look at matriarchal remnants in Russian folktales. She tells me that Russian folktales tend to end, not with "and they lived happily ever after", but something like "and I have been to their home where I drank their beer, but not a drop of it passed my lips." Simultaneously asserting the fictional veracity of the tale and the speaker's sobriety.

quote:

---

but i have read everything God has guided me to and personally i believe it is true

---

You've read what you felt like reading and it sounds good to you. Ok. That isn't the issue.You have made a statement which you cannot know to be true. How can you reasonably conclude that every word is true when you do not know what every word is? It is like 'knowing' that every letter of the English alphabet is written with at least one straight line.

quote:

---

which indeed does not make me silly

---

I never said you were silly. I don't know you. But the claim you made is indeed silly. Or dishonest. Or perhaps you just weren't thinking about it.

quote:

---

attacked for admitting this

---

You aren't being attacked for not having read the entire Bible, but for claiming it is all true when you don't even know what it all is. How would you react if someone swore that every word of, say, an Edgar Casey book, were true, and then that person confessed that they hadn't actually read all of it?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"C"? "S"? I think I know what you were trying to say, but I've never heard that analogy before. Can you clarify? Thanks - and sorry for the interruption.

quote:

---

"C"? "S"? I think I know what you were trying to say, but I've never heard that analogy before. Can you clarify? Thanks - and sorry for the interruption.

---

That's exactly the point. Without knowing the whole alphabet you wouldn't have known about 'c' and 's' and 'o' as well. But had you only memorized some, even most, of the alphabet, you might be tempted to agree with the statement-- which is what it seems mike has, metaphorically, done.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

crashfrog:

quote:

---

Since he's so certain that negatives can be proved, I'd like to see him tackle this one.

---

Don't be silly.Just because some negatives can be proven doesn't mean all negatives can be proven. After all, in an axiomatic system sophisticated enough to model arithmetic, there are statements that cannot be proven even though there are statements that can be.All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Going by the numbers, most people on this planet think you're god is nothing more than a fantasy you made up.

---

​

i did not make the bible up

---

I didn't say you did.What I said was that going by the numbers, most people on this planet think your ("you're"? Oy!) god is nothing more than a fantasy you made up.Are you saying that the Bible is your god?

quote:

---

it says everything in it is true and can you disprove it?

---

I can disprove the statement that "everything in it is true."For example, Daniel 5 claims that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar:Dainel 5:2: Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.But there's a problem...Belshazzar isn't Nebuchadnezzar's son.Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son Awil-Marduk who was murdered in 560 BCE by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usar, who took his place and was succeeded by Nabonidus in 556 BCE, who was the last king of Babylon.Now, Balshazzar was indeed the son of someone...Nabonidus, but he wasn't a king. He was a viceroy. And he wasn't the son of Nebuchadnezzar.Therefore, the statement "everything in it is true" is shown to be false.Does that mean nothing in it is true? Of course not. But, I wasn't trying to show that. Instead, I was simply showing that the statement "everything in it is true" isn't true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No. The afterlife doesn't work that way. Whether you end up in Tartarus or the Elysian Fields has nothing to do with whether or not anybody else died for you. It has only to do with what you did

---

​

where as in the bible nothing we do is worthy of heaven.

---

That's not what the Bible says:Matthew 16:27: For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.Seems that salvation comes from works, not faith.

quote:

---

the only way to heaven is Jesus Christ who does not require us to physically fight anyone!

---

But if Jesus is god, why did god command so many people to kill others: Exodus 32:27, Numbers 15:35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3.Granted, that's the Old Testament, not a direct statement of Jesus, but many Christians seem to think that Jesus includes all of the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus pretty much goes along with it (not surprising since Jesus was Jewish):Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Of course, the Bible seems to think that those who aren't Christian are people to be despised:1 Corinthians 16:22: If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

'That's not what the Bible says:Matthew 16:27: For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.Seems that salvation comes from works, not faith.'----------------------------No, you have misinterpreted it.works are required to confirm our faith because faith without works is dead.He is talking about rewarding people who believe , remember it clearly says the only way to heaven is through Jesus ,him being the way the truth and the life.So you are wrong in this interpretation.'What I said was that going by the numbers, most people on this planet think your ("you're"? Oy!) god is nothing more than a fantasy you made up.'can you prove these people think that? and what i am saying is i did not make him up because he is told of in his word.'Of course, the Bible seems to think that those who aren't Christian are people to be despised:'so everyone can get to heaven through works yet outsiders are despised,i don't think so i think you should read it again!

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.

The author of a book I read recently explained this as a problem with the translation of the word 'faith.' 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. It is commitment and it is active. Both verses can be true and can even apply to the same thing. The word used in both verses is 'pistis' and its usage in James in the sense mentioned is a bit awkward, but not absurd.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com