true religion

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.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

How? What, specifically, am I missing? Have I cut too much out of the quote such that context is missing?Be specific.

quote:

---

works are required to confirm our faith because faith without works is dead.

---

But that isn't what he's saying. In fact, the specific comment in Matthew 16:27 is pretty much a stand-alone line. Jesus is on a rant, whoever shall save his life shall lose it, whoever loses it shall save it, what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul, all that stuff, and then he spits it out: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.It's crystal clear: Salvation comes through works, not faith.

quote:

---

He is talking about rewarding people who believe,

---

No, not believe. Do. You have to take up your cross.

quote:

---

remember it clearly says the only way to heaven is through Jesus ,him being the way the truth and the life.

---

It doesn't say that at all in this passage. Not even close:16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.16:25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.16:26: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?16:27: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.No talk of faith...Jesus is talking only about works.

quote:

---

So you are wrong in this interpretation.

---

No, I'm not.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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?

---

Oh...I get it...we can trust the numbers when they tell us how many people are Christian, but as soon as we start looking at the numbers for how many aren't Christian, then it's all just a plot.There are more than six billion people on the planet.Only about 2 billion of them are Christian. And those numbers are shrinking.Now you tell me...if only one-third of the planet is of your religion, what do you think the other two-thirds thinks of your religion?Perhaps they might think that you're wrong?

quote:

---

and what i am saying is i did not make him up because he is told of in his word.

---

Circular reasoning.I am told of in my word.Ergo, I am god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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!

---

I have. I even quoted the specific passage to you (which I notice you cut out).Are you saying that passage doesn't exist?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Of course, am I now casually discussing the Biblical view of faith with an atheist/agnostic? That feels a bit odd.

---

No more odd than casually discussing the Egyptian view of the afterlife, for example. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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.

'Are you saying that passage doesn't exist?'no i am simply saying your interperetation differs from my own.
if you expect me to argue against the scripture you are wrong.i agree with the scripture rhain just not your conclusions.(sorry in taking so long to reply)

It's these kind of arguments that make religion look like a right arse. Maybe you shouldn't try to interpret the bible so rigidly.

Not to discount your point that the bible might mention unicorns in some of its translations but could the mention of the unicorns be an allegorical use of a mythical creature to make a point? I didn't think that it mentioned an actual belief in the existence of unicorns. The bible is resplendent in allegory. Though that doesn't stop people from believing in mythical creatures.

quote:

---

Not to discount your point that the bible might mention unicorns in some of its translations but could the mention of the unicorns be an allegorical use of a mythical creature to make a point?

---

Well, exactly.

quote:

---

I didn't think that it mentioned an actual belief in the existence of unicorns. The bible is resplendent in allegory. Though that doesn't stop people from believing in mythical creatures.

---

You are exactly right. I like to use the unicorn example when people start saying that the flood really happened or that one of the Genesis accounts of creation is literally how things happened.If they want to believe in 6 literal days and/or the flood, they have to believe in unicorns, too, if they are going to be consistent.There is just as much evidence for unicors as there are for the Noachian flood, in other words, so they might as well believe in both.Then they say something like, "But that's silly. Everybody knows that there's no such things as unicorns."Then comes the moment when they start ignoring all further discussion about how they are not Biblical literalists anymore, but take parts as symbolic or allegorical, so why do they insist upon Genesis or the Flood to being literally true despite there being no evidence for such events as described in the Bible.

OK - I'm going to be right up-front with my evo-side bias.I really like Schraf's last message, and the recent discussion in general. In fact, the entire topic might very well be very good.But all that is now happening, is getting buried in a vaguely titled "Welcome, Visitors!" forum topic.I suggest Schraf take things to a new topic, with a nice new title. And supply a link back to this topic.Closing this one down.As always, complaints can be sent to "too fast closure of threads"Adminnemooseus