I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Zongerfield]

you read stories -- good for you.

Stories are my business -- care to discuss a few?

Stories are my business too. I live by them. The Bible is full of them. Yes, I would love to continue to frame our discussion based on the stories we know.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote by rjc
Sure, I'll stick it on the end of my backlog of books to get through
Be aware that I'll be reading it alongside with a published rebuttal.

That is the best way! I want ALL the information when I am dealing with such important issue.




Quote by rjc
Also, may I ask what you do for a living? It sounds interesting.

I verify Citizenship/legal residence (U.S. Dept of Homeland Security), criminal records, income, assets, expenses, etc. in order to approve federal funds for housing.
If I mess up with verifications my butt is in big trouble! Because something looks like it is truth and can be very convincing, does not mean it is truth. I have learned to rely on evidence quite a bit.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by Zongerfield
But to your point, where did I say that "feeling" God was a "prerequisite for believing that Christ is who He says He."

You didn’t nor did I say that feeling cannot be a part of believing that Christ is who He says He is. I was adding that feelings do not have to be a part of believing.

What you said was:
And if after your prayer, you don't feel even the slightest bit touched, ie the hairs on the back of your neck don't stand up, or if you don't sense a prickling in your inner-consciousness, than you can forsake the Lord and ask him to damn you to hell.
You implied that if there was not feelings then you have the choice to be damned to hell. Connecting the lack of feeling with being damned to hell is not supported by scriptures that I know of. It seems that you want rjc to experience what you want him to experience and if he does not you bring up a bad consequence (damn you to hell).



Reply by Zonderfield
may I ask you, have you physically "felt" the presence of God in your life?
Of course I have but most of the time in my spiritual life I do not have the kind of feeling that you described to rjc.

 

[rjc34]

That is the best way! I want ALL the information when I am dealing with such important issue.

I verify Citizenship/legal residence (U.S. Dept of Homeland Security), criminal records, income, assets, expenses, etc. in order to approve federal funds for housing.
If I mess up with verifications my butt is in big trouble! Because something looks like it is truth and can be very convincing, does not mean it is truth. I have learned to rely on evidence quite a bit.

Then I'm sure you can see why I hold the position that I do on this all-important issue, right?

 

[sdmsanjose]

posted by sdmsanjose http://www.christianforums.com/t7548635-20/#post57198560
That is the best way! I want ALL the information when I am dealing with such important issue.

I verify Citizenship/legal residence (U.S. Dept of Homeland Security), criminal records, income, assets, expenses, etc. in order to approve federal funds for housing.
If I mess up with verifications my butt is in big trouble! Because something looks like it is truth and can be very convincing, does not mean it is truth. I have learned to rely on evidence quite a bit.

Reply by rjc
Then I'm sure you can see why I hold the position that I do on this all-important issue, right?

I certainly understand you and me wanting to get as much information as possible on important issues. We both like evidence and in my work the evidence is pretty much black and white. Either you are a legal resident or you are not, that is kinda black and white.

If you are taking about the spiritual world issue then unfortunately we can gather all the information the world and not have empirical evidence that leaves no room for doubt. In Christianity faith is the “…substance of things hoped for evidence of things not seen” So I have a dilemma in that I love documented evidence but faith is a whole different realm. We are talking oil and water here.

Having said the above I do believe that Christianity does not require blind faith in all things. For example there are some pretty good historical records (other than the Bible) that state there really was a Jesus Christ that was crucified on the cross. This information came from Roman records and Jewish historians that would not be inclined to endorse such evidence. The book, “New Evidence That Demands a Verdict” has archeological, geological, and historic presentations that substantiate some of the biblical claims. Many of those presentations are not from the Christian religions but from secular sources.

Now as for the heart of Christianity, which is reprinted below, that is going to take FAITH not evidence.

Rjc
Faith in the belief that God loves you and while we were in sin He sent Christ to die for us, and then raised Him from the dead so that you and I can be reconciled back to God upon our death will never be a fact that will be verified in our lifetime. Faith and “ a fact that has been verified” are not the same.

REPLY BY rjc
And I guess that's where the split is between most believers and non-believers. I tried faith for a while, but I became concerned not with what I wanted to be true, but what was objectively true.

Rjc
I have been lucky in my life as I have seen an example of God’s love and grace in real life. My mother loved me and did things for my betterment even though I did her wrong. I do not think that her true forgiveness of me and her doing things for my betterment is something that she invented. I believe that there is a higher power and that higher power’s love, grace, and forgiveness is demonstrated to some degree by some humans. So you see I really had to have something in real life that I could see in order for me to have the faith that I have. I am no faith giant but I am grateful for the little faith that I have.
Just call me doubting Thomas!

Rjc, I am interested in your studies at the university. I hope that you will share them with us when you can.

Stan

 

[Beccs]

Classical Atheism and Liberal Christianity versus Conservative Christianity

This thread has been a very explicit statement of the Atheism and Liberal Christianity versus Conservative Christianity.

I am proud when Atheists call be a bigot and criticize me for taking a strong stand on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Atheists do not like the concept of "The wages of sin is death", because that means they should be executed for their evil deeds.

Atheists are usually socialists and pacifists, that oppose war and the death penalty, because they are the ones that should be executed. Opposition to the death penalty is a survival concept for evil people.

I do not believe Christians that allow evil people to advocate, condone and participate in sinful activity are in God's will.

When I say, the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing, I am stating that the good men that are doing nothing are people that call themselves Christians.

The Bible does state that disobedient children should be brought before the elders. I believe those that reject the concept of bringing disobedient children before the elders are rejecting God. In present day, legal system that would be to bring the disobedient child before a judge. I have never advocated disobedient children should be executed every time they are brought before a judge as the Atheists would state, but one must always keep open the option that some children are so disobedient that they should be executed.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Christians need to read the Old Testament to understand how God intended a nation be governed in order for the nation to remain a Christian Nation. If Christians fail to govern, then I believe God will take the nation from the Christians.

Even the New Testament of the Bible, state that a man that does not provide for his family is worse than a infidel. Are Christians to condone people that are infidels or should Christians support Civil Law that deals with infidels, even to the point of execution?

PS - I do not agree with faith guardian position that Christians should be pacifists. I believe Christians have a responsibility of waging war on those that would advocate evil concepts. If Christians had not fought in WW II, Norway would probably be nothing more than an iron mine for the Nazis. I believe faith guardians concept of Christians is the Liberal Christian position.

I advocate the three levels of action relative to evil, and that means the death penalty and war should be kept open as an option.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world. No one should be forced to be a Christian, but all should be judged by Civil Law based on Christian Principles. All rebuke by Christians should be based on scripture from the Bible.

Tolerance is allowing for a mistake. Too much tolerance is a mistake. Tolerance is allowing for a mistake, too much tolerance is accepting an habitual mistake (Atheistic Lifestyle of sin).

PS The theme of the Bible is a God of both Love and Righteousness. Too many people that call themselves Christians will only discuss the Love of God. I consider those that will only discuss the concept of a God of Love to be Liberal Christians.

PS - It drives Atheists crazy when you show America was founded as a Christian Nation, even though America did lie to the Muslims in the Treaty of Tripoli.

It drives the fundamentalist christians insane when they're told that the US wasn't founded as a christian nation and all they can do in return is lie about the Treaty of tripoli.

It's so funny when they do that.

And a fundamentalist like yourself advocating genocide? That doesn't surprise me at all. How much evil has been done in the world by "people" such as yourself in the name of your religion?

 

[rjc34]

Having said the above I do believe that Christianity does not require blind faith in all things. For example there are some pretty good historical records (other than the Bible) that state there really was a Jesus Christ that was crucified on the cross. This information came from Roman records and Jewish historians that would not be inclined to endorse such evidence. The book, “New Evidence That Demands a Verdict” has archeological, geological, and historic presentations that substantiate some of the biblical claims. Many of those presentations are not from the Christian religions but from secular sources.

Since you posted about the book a few posts back, I've been reading through a ton of reviews, rebuttals and refutations to the points made in the book. From what I've seen the 'evidence' and arguments presented are nothing really new, and nothing I haven't heard of before. (That said, I will still check out a copy from the library and give it a read).

I'd recommend the brutal chapter by chapter skewering of McDowell's book over at infidels.org.

Rjc, I am interested in your studies at the university. I hope that you will share them with us when you can.

Well I'm actually finishing up my first year of Biochemistry, but after a long an arduous period of self-reflection and introspection, I decided to switch to a philosophy degree with a double major in religious studies, and something else (likely ethics or something similar). I don't know ultimately where it will take me. I may graduate and find a job, or I might after a year or two more apply for law school or political studies.

Also, mind if I make the small request of your replies being in plain text? It's a bit of a pain sorting through all of those tags to find the text I want to reply to!

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Here's the problem as I see it. So faith is required for salvation, right? Eh Protestants?

Does faith require some particular action or decision? Perhaps it is the decision to forego what might have been but turned out not to be a rager. Perhaps it is the decision not to sleep with one's GF. Perhaps it is the decision to pray and ask for forgiveness.

If my salvation is based, ultimately, on my decision to act or speak or think in a particular way, then the theology being presented is one of works righteousness.

Sure, sure, God might be responsible for amplifying my paltry prayers into something worthy of salvation. But, if without MY ACTIONS and MY DECISION salvation cannot be brought to pass, then I am the one who is ultimately responsible for salvation

You have to choose, folks, does God save us because God loves humankind and is gracious to us? Or does God save only those who deserve salvation owing to their own righteousness?

That is the fundamental flaw of contemporary fundamentalisms. They mistake the inches deep pool of their own penitence and reverence for the deeps of God's love. They hold onto only those things that they can control and count God as an amplifier of their actions, instead of the One who acts for us to save us.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Thus spake the UCC

 

[sdmsanjose]

Rjc reply
I'd recommend the brutal chapter by chapter skewering of McDowell's book over at infidels.org.

Sdmsanjose reply
I started reading the infidels.org review of Evidence That Demands a Verdict (ETDV) and am stating below my thoughts so far.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html


Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus
Is It Reliable?
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Last Updated: May 15, 2000

Although I agree with McDowell that there was a historical Jesus, I shall argue that most of McDowell's sources do not provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus.[3] On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the Christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q.'[4]

Sdmsanjose reply
I see no reason to disagree with Infidel.org on the above statements. We all agree that there was an historical Jesus. That is one of the main reasons that I recommend Evidence t That Demands a Verdict is to show that Jesus was not a fictional character. I did not know that even those that oppose the Bible agree that Jesus was real. Thanks rjc for that link as it encouraging.

I also did some reading on the infidel.org review of the section titled &#8220;The Uniqueness of the Bible&#8221; Although the Infidel.org reviews state that they also agree that the Bible is Unique the criticism seems to be against Josh McDowell's claim that the Bible is unified. Infiels.org quotes Jeremiah 23 then claims that McDowell is wrong because Jeremiah 23 talks about prophets disagreeing. My reading of the ETDV talks about ISSUES such as
Adultery, obedience to Authority, Character development, parenting, nature and revelation of God. It seems that Infidel.org is not talking about the subject matter (ISSUES) that ETDV is talking about.

It seems that two MAIN issues above are agreed upon by Infidlels.org and ETDV. Those two issues are:
Jesus was a real live person that existed
The Bible is Unique

As for the topics of:
Jesus is the son of God and is the messiah that died so that all can have a chance a being reconciled back to God
God raised Jesus from the grave

The two above comes down to mostly faith and it would be futile for me to try and prove this with evidence.

Rjc reply
Also, mind if I make the small request of your replies being in plain text? It's a bit of a pain sorting through all of those tags to find the text I want to reply to!

sdmsanjose reply
I don&#8217;t mind at all and I would be glad to accommodate your request but I do not know how. I type my post in MS-WORD then paste into Christian Forums. I color code the text so that I can keep straight who is saying what. If you can give me step by step instructions on how to accommodate you while using MS-Word I would do it.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by Abraham
Here's the problem as I see it. So faith is required for salvation, right? Eh Protestants?

Does faith require some particular action or decision? Perhaps it is the decision to forego what might have been but turned out not to be a rager. Perhaps it is the decision not to sleep with one's GF. Perhaps it is the decision to pray and ask for forgiveness.

If my salvation is based, ultimately, on my decision to act or speak or think in a particular way, then the theology being presented is one of works righteousness.

Sure, sure, God might be responsible for amplifying my paltry prayers into something worthy of salvation. But, if without MY ACTIONS and MY DECISION salvation cannot be brought to pass, then I am the one who is ultimately responsible for salvation

You have to choose, folks, does God save us because God loves humankind and is gracious to us? Or does God save only those who deserve salvation owing to their own righteousness?

That is the fundamental flaw of contemporary fundamentalisms. They mistake the inches deep pool of their own penitence and reverence for the deeps of God's love. They hold onto only those things that they can control and count God as an amplifier of their actions, instead of the One who acts for us to save us.

Reply by sdmsanjose
Here are a few verses that address salvation

John 3:15-17 (King James Version)

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved



Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast


In my opinion God’s grace comes first then our faith. So for me it is a two person ordeal; God and you. That is just my opinion and I would recommend you studying the scriptures with prayer to have your own conclusion.

 

[TheReasoner]

Reply by sdmsanjose
Here are a few verses that address salvation

John 3:15-17 (King James Version)

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved



Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast


In my opinion God’s grace comes first then our faith. So for me it is a two person ordeal; God and you. That is just my opinion and I would recommend you studying the scriptures with prayer to have your own conclusion.

True. But don't forget Matthew 25, specifically the parable of the sheep and the goats.

 

[HosannaHM]

Here's the problem as I see it. So faith is required for salvation, right? Eh Protestants?

Does faith require some particular action or decision? Perhaps it is the decision to forego what might have been but turned out not to be a rager. Perhaps it is the decision not to sleep with one's GF. Perhaps it is the decision to pray and ask for forgiveness.

If my salvation is based, ultimately, on my decision to act or speak or think in a particular way, then the theology being presented is one of works righteousness.

Sure, sure, God might be responsible for amplifying my paltry prayers into something worthy of salvation. But, if without MY ACTIONS and MY DECISION salvation cannot be brought to pass, then I am the one who is ultimately responsible for salvation

You have to choose, folks, does God save us because God loves humankind and is gracious to us? Or does God save only those who deserve salvation owing to their own righteousness?

That is the fundamental flaw of contemporary fundamentalisms. They mistake the inches deep pool of their own penitence and reverence for the deeps of God's love. They hold onto only those things that they can control and count God as an amplifier of their actions, instead of the One who acts for us to save us.

But we must be careful. It's God who works on your heart. If we start saying things like "I'm saved because I PRAYED to God and He rescued me!" That doesn't make any since. Can one save through their own words? Of course not!

God works on our hearts. He is the all-knowing everlasting sovereign Lord. Since He does everything, we cannot boast in the faith. Also, all the more reason to give Him the praise for everything. How humbling is it to know that we are saved by GRACE!! God didn't have to make this perfect plan of salvation, He didn't have to send Jesus Christ. He didn't have to do anything! But He did because He loves us. And that is why it's grace

"Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” John 10:25-30

Christ can save, words alone cannot.

 

[rjc34]

Sdmsanjose reply
I see no reason to disagree with Infidel.org on the above statements. We all agree that there was an historical Jesus. That is one of the main reasons that I recommend Evidence t That Demands a Verdict is to show that Jesus was not a fictional character. I did not know that even those that oppose the Bible agree that Jesus was real. Thanks rjc for that link as it encouraging.

It's not that we oppose the bible, but more like we enjoy some of the teachings and literature in it. We do not however believe any of the supernatural claims made though.

(And although almost all of us have the opinion that there may have been a historical Jesus, I also express doubts as to most of the claims about his life. That said there are many different hypotheses about the story that I love to research and look into, as I find them very interesting! Of course my favorite is the Jesus Mushroom hypothesis )

My reading of the ETDV talks about ISSUES such as [/I]
Adultery, obedience to Authority, Character development, parenting, nature and revelation of God. It seems that Infidel.org is not talking about the subject matter (ISSUES) that ETDV is talking about.

I think the main reason they skipped those parts is that the book is supposed to be evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things documented in the Bible... I see no reason why they should cover any of these others things in such a book.

It seems that two MAIN issues above are agreed upon by Infidlels.org and ETDV. Those two issues are:
Jesus was a real live person that existed
The Bible is Unique

I think most atheists believe that there was some sort of Jewish rabbi named Jesus who preached around the time he lived, or that perhaps he even did claim to be the messiah (of which there were many, many claims at the time).

As for the topics of:
Jesus is the son of God and is the messiah that died so that all can have a chance a being reconciled back to God
God raised Jesus from the grave

The two above comes down to mostly faith and it would be futile for me to try and prove this with evidence.

And there's my stumbling block. I'm glad you're at least humble enough to admit that these two claims are not backed by evidence, and must be taken on faith. There a some out there (such as famous apologist William Lane Craig) who make futile attempts to argue that Jesus physically rising from the grave is the best explanation for the evidence... (And for a rebuttal to that I'd recommend any of the recent books by Bart Ehrman).

I physically cannot take anything 'on faith'. My brain won't let me.

sdmsanjose reply
I don’t mind at all and I would be glad to accommodate your request but I do not know how. I type my post in MS-WORD then paste into Christian Forums. I color code the text so that I can keep straight who is saying what. If you can give me step by step instructions on how to accommodate you while using MS-Word I would do it.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Oh that's fine then, don't worry about it. Although if you did something different here, it worked, as there was certainly a lot less clutter!

Hope you're having a wonderful day.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Reply by sdmsanjose
Here are a few verses that address salvation

John 3:15-17 (King James Version)

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved



Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast


In my opinion God&#8217;s grace comes first then our faith. So for me it is a two person ordeal; God and you. That is just my opinion and I would recommend you studying the scriptures with prayer to have your own conclusion.

I have studied the scriptures, and do study the scriptures, and have come to the conclusion that there is a difficult theological sticky-wicket as regards salvation.

Namely, do I need to do some things or say some things or think some things in order to be saved?

Or, on the other hand, does my salvation depend on the gift of God?

In my opinion, people read the John 3 and Romans 10 passages and fail to recognize the radical teaching that God saves us. I do not save myself, I am not even playing John Stockton to God's Karl Malone in salvation pick and roll. God has saved me. Period.

If we allow ourselves to be the one whose thinking determines our salvation we have created a works righteousness of the mind. Folks are generally happy to revel in their salvation when it is compared to "sinners" out there partying and living it up and refusing to come to Jesus or whatever. In that case, an individual person's decisions are said to be the one's that result in lack of salvation. See the problem?

Let me further amplify the problem. What is to be done about people born without the mental capacities necessary to understand a story when it is told to them? How are we to make such a person understand that she or he is a sinner who needs to confess and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? Isn't such a person damned to hell because they cannot perform the necessary mental and verbal acts? Or is there more than one salvation formula depending on one's life circumstances?

Works righteousness is alive and well and poisonous in today's world, we have simply replaced almsgiving and whatnot with mental acts such as belief and confession. It is too bad, the world would be better off if our works-righteousness were more old-school.

If we abandoned the false pride of believing we are responsible for our ultimate fate, though, the reign of God would break loose.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

I'm like NATO...

Droppin' bombs

 

[I <3 Abraham]

It's not that we oppose the bible, but more like we enjoy some of the teachings and literature in it. We do not however believe any of the supernatural claims made though.

(And although almost all of us have the opinion that there may have been a historical Jesus, I also express doubts as to most of the claims about his life. That said there are many different hypotheses about the story that I love to research and look into, as I find them very interesting! Of course my favorite is the Jesus Mushroom hypothesis )



I think the main reason they skipped those parts is that the book is supposed to be evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things documented in the Bible... I see no reason why they should cover any of these others things in such a book.



I think most atheists believe that there was some sort of Jewish rabbi named Jesus who preached around the time he lived, or that perhaps he even did claim to be the messiah (of which there were many, many claims at the time).



And there's my stumbling block. I'm glad you're at least humble enough to admit that these two claims are not backed by evidence, and must be taken on faith. There a some out there (such as famous apologist William Lane Craig) who make futile attempts to argue that Jesus physically rising from the grave is the best explanation for the evidence... (And for a rebuttal to that I'd recommend any of the recent books by Bart Ehrman).

I physically cannot take anything 'on faith'. My brain won't let me.






Oh that's fine then, don't worry about it. Although if you did something different here, it worked, as there was certainly a lot less clutter!

Hope you're having a wonderful day.

I would also recommend getting yourself an english version of a synopsis of the four gospels. It allows us to look at the ways that each evangelist tells the story in a way that fits the particular purpose of the gospel.

Luke, for instance, seems to routinely downplay any conflict between the Jews and the Romans. E.G the story of the raising of the centurion's servant (or son if the gospel of John is to be believed), in Luke the centurion is shown as being deferential toward the Jewish elders, sending the Jewish elders to speak to Jesus out of respect and even being said to have financed the construction of the synagogue. We can infer that Luke may have been writing with an eye toward an audience sympathetic to or composed of Romans. His project may have been to present the jewish roots of Christianity as something that could be seen as respectable by a metropolitan audience. Hence his high-falutin' Theophilos prologue and overall positive portrayal of Romans especially centurions.

The main point I am making is that we do not need to cling to the idea that every word of the scriptures is exactly true. There is so much we can learn about the progenitors of our faith if we give up the idea that the scripture is infallible. We can learn so much about the workings of the Holy Spirit if we admit that the bible is a document written by and edited (extensively) by human beings that nevertheless carries with it a core message of divine revelation.

There is a middle way between atheistic rejection of the Christian story as incredible and a fundamentalistic clinging to a facticity that does not capture the genius of scripture. That middle way is called the Main-Line protestant church and, I might add, a good deal of the Catholic church too.

But the main-line rules...

So bringin' it back home to the topic. IF we abandon the unnecessary fundamentalisms that all too often steal the communal Christian microphone, it is possible to see that the project of science and the project of the church are simply different from one another. One need not find any threat to the Christian faith in evolution because the bible is describing a spiritual reality rather than telling cosmological history. It is an account of the life-giving faith of the Jewish people and their relationship with the One God. It contains all the wrinkles and warts and hideousness of which humanity is capable (psalm 137, HELLO!) but it also contains the great hopes and vision of humanity. In short, the scriptures are humanity, in a deep and spiritual way. They show who we are and they record how one group of people came to know who God is.

The Hebrew Bible, in other words, is not in competition with science textbooks. Those who use it in that way misunderstand scripture at a profound level.

Can I get a witness?

 

[sdmsanjose]

sdmsanjose reply
As for the topics of:
Jesus is the son of God and is the messiah that died so that all can have a chance a being reconciled back to God
God raised Jesus from the grave

The two above comes down to mostly faith and it would be futile for me to try and prove this with evidence.

rjc reply
And there's my stumbling block. I'm glad you're at least humble enough to admit that these two claims are not backed by evidence, and must be taken on faith. There a some out there (such as famous apologist William Lane Craig) who make futile attempts to argue that Jesus physically rising from the grave is the best explanation for the evidence... (And for a rebuttal to that I'd recommend any of the recent books by Bart Ehrman).

IMO William Lane Craig or anybody else that tries to prove that the two Christian beliefs above with explanations and evidence are counterproductive to faith. If we had evidence of that which we claim take faith then it would seize to be faith.


Again I have to have some real life experience in order for me to make the above statement. Let me tell you of my experience. When my son was very little I used to put him up on a block fence and tell him to jump and I would catch him. My little son did not hesitate and jumped and I caught him. He believed and trusted me.

Now what if my little son said, dad you have to show me evidence and prove to me that you are going to catch me or I am not going to jump, that would not be the same. Instead my son jumped because he trusted me and had faith in me that I would catch him. That made me beam. Having to present evidence to him and prove that he was going to be caught would mean that he did not trust me. Furthermore, under the evidence and proof method everyone would be the same to my son because he was guaranteed he would be caught. I would just be another body that guaranteed him safety so that he could get a thrill out of jumping and being caught. Me having to provide proof and evidence to my son would kill the special bond that we have for each other and would be counterproductive to faith.

The trust that my son had in me and my motivation to protect that trust came from somewhere. I say it came from the invention of faith and it was not invented by mankind IMO.

Rjc
You are a very upfront and honest person. I can dig a cat like you Yes I am from the 1950s/1960s!

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by Abraham
Namely, do I need to do some things or say some things or think some things in order to be saved?

Or, on the other hand, does my salvation depend on the gift of God?

In my opinion, people read the John 3 and Romans 10 passages and fail to recognize the radical teaching that God saves us. I do not save myself, I am not even playing John Stockton to God's Karl Malone in salvation pick and roll. God has saved me. Period

.



Reply by sdmsanjose
“John Stockton to God's Karl Malone in salvation pick and roll”
I love it! I am a HUGE basketball fan and understand your basketball metaphor.
Since I am a Phoenix Suns fan I would substitute Steve Nash and Amar'e Stoudemire. Ok enough basketball.

I have no problem believing that God does the saving. God takes the initiative and does almost everything IMO. However, I do believe that mankind has a least some part to play. Abraham believed God when God told him he was going to have a child in his old age, Abraham got up and left his country when God told him to go to another land (That was scary in those days, you could easily die, no cell phones or 911) Abraham took his son Isaac to the mountain to be sacrificed and there are more stories to show that mankind must do something.

You do not have to take these stories literally to see that God wants you to use your free will to believe in HIM. If mankind has to do nothing then why did God give mankind a free will? If we do not have any part of salvation then why did Jesus instruct the 12 apostles to go into all the nations and preach of the good news of salvation?

I know there is that Calvinistic theory of predestination but I just cannot bring myself to believe that. You maybe right but it is not for me.

As for you questions:
"What is to be done about people born without the mental capacities necessary to understand a story when it is told to them? How are we to make such a person understand that she or he is a sinner who needs to confess and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? Isn't such a person damned to hell because they cannot perform the necessary mental and verbal acts? Or is there more than one salvation formula depending on one's life circumstances?"

Very good and thought provoking questions. I have heard of the “age of accountability” which seems to say that when one is not able to understand then God does not hold them accountable. I saw one reference that claimed Romans 7 is where that Age of Accountability” came from. That does seem reasonable to me and that it would apply to children and people with mental capacities that are unable to understand. That is the best that I can come up with. Frankly I do not know the answer to your questions.

 

[rjc34]

IMO William Lane Craig or anybody else that tries to prove that the two Christian beliefs above with explanations and evidence are counterproductive to faith. If we had evidence of that which we claim take faith then it would seize to be faith.


Again I have to have some real life experience in order for me to make the above statement. Let me tell you of my experience. When my son was very little I used to put him up on a block fence and tell him to jump and I would catch him. My little son did not hesitate and jumped and I caught him. He believed and trusted me.

Now what if my little son said, dad you have to show me evidence and prove to me that you are going to catch me or I am not going to jump, that would not be the same. Instead my son jumped because he trusted me and had faith in me that I would catch him. That made me beam. Having to present evidence to him and prove that he was going to be caught would mean that he did not trust me. Furthermore, under the evidence and proof method everyone would be the same to my son because he was guaranteed he would be caught. I would just be another body that guaranteed him safety so that he could get a thrill out of jumping and being caught. Me having to provide proof and evidence to my son would kill the special bond that we have for each other and would be counterproductive to faith.

The trust that my son had in me and my motivation to protect that trust came from somewhere. I say it came from the invention of faith and it was not invented by mankind IMO.

Rjc
You are a very upfront and honest person. I can dig a cat like you Yes I am from the 1950s/1960s!

Ah the sacred bond between a father and son. Unbreakable some might say.

Personally the main difference lies in the fact that your son can see, touch, hear and experience you as really real, right in front of his eyes. From everyone I've spoken to here the main thing that pops out to me is that nobody's experience of God or the Holy Spirit is ever congruent with anyone else's.

And thank you for the compliment I wish I could have talks like these with my Dad. (He's a very moderate Christian, and while as soon as I was old enough to stay home along he stopped making me come to church, we've never really talked about religion together. I think it's better that way.)