- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I'm not.You seem to be disqualifying inference based on data as a method of thought.
If you prohibit inferences based on scriptures, how are you NOT.No, I'm not.
Catholics haven't b3lieved in literal creationistm since AugustineIs that the official Catholic view or is it your own while claiming to be Catholic?
If you prohibit inferences based on scriptures, how are you NOT.
Many biblical truths are derived via inference after the examination of biblical context.
A prohibition of inference is a lobotomymy of the mental faculties.
The inferences we have been seeing thus far have been along these lines: 1) Jesus referred to Adam, 2) Therefore Jesus believed in Adam, 3) Therefore you will burn in hell if you don't believe in a literal reading of the Genesis stories.
What?
Obviously I am exaggerating, but the fact remains that there has been no actual link shown between believing in the Genesis stories and salvation. If you can provide that link then inferences are fine. Thus far no one has done that.
Then explain this supposed misunderstanding.The misuse of inference doesn't warrant the immediate rejection of any inference simply because it is an inference.
If an inference is based on a defective premise-then obviously you are 100% justified in rejecting it.
For example, simply because a person makes reference to something, his belief in its literalness cannot be assumed.
Neither does the number 3rd conclusion in your sequence logically follow buy default.
In short, that is a glaringly good example of fallacious deductive reasoning.
As for an ACTUAL link between salvation and the mere belief in the Genesis stories-as you phrase it, I'm not sure that we are speaking about the same concepts since your phraseology is a misrepresentation of the essence of the issue involved and might very well represent a serious misunderstanding of it. Such a misunderstanding would explain why you argue in the way you do.
Then explain this supposed misunderstanding.
The fact is that no one in this thread has yet explained any link between belief in the Genesis account and salvation.
No one has made that claim.Mere belief in an event in itself doesn't automatically grant believer salvation.
That is the misunderstanding.
There is nothing necessarily "mere" about stories--especially stories inspired by God.The question itself is a loaded one since it requires the responder to admit that the Genesis accounts were merely stories.
Never said there is. But In such controversial polemic discussions I prefer to use the term "Genesis accounts" since the term "stories" can CUNNINGLY be used to strongly CONNOTE fantasy. If I join right in and begin crooning "stories" as well, then I would be falling right into the trap and I'm not to keen on falling into obviously contrived, semantic traps-especially when ill concealed.There is nothing necessarily "mere" about stories--especially stories inspired by God.
Do you understan what this thread is about? I believe that you will be saved if you accept Jesus as your Lotd and Savior. But some in this Forum have informed me that you will not be saved if you do not accept a literal reading of the Genesis account if creation. That is why I started this thread. However no one who has responded has yet provided a link of any kind between accepting the Genesis account as factual history and salvation.Then why do you continue to present the issue as if they had?
Looking at it from the other side, your "semantic trap" seems imaginary. Each of the the creation stories has a genre*, whether they are also 100% accurate literal history or not. Where is the "trap" in recognizing it?Never said there is. But In such controversial polemic discussions I prefer to use the term "Genesis accounts" since the term "stories" can CUNNINGLY be used to strongly CONNOTE fantasy. If I join right in and begin crooning "stories" as well, then I would be falling right into the trap and I'm not to keen on falling into obviously contrived, semantic traps-especially when ill concealed.
Looking at it from the other side, your "semantic trap" seems imaginary. Each of the the creation stories has a genre*, whether they are also 100% accurate literal history or not. Where is the "trap" in recognizing it?
*The first is hymnody, the second an etiology--neither one fits the genre of fantasy.
That I had such a notion is a figment of your imagination. Yes, I think there are two stories; that I suppose them "two creation accounts which are totally unrelated to one another and which blatantly contradict each other" is a slanderous fabrication.I don't accept your notion that there are two creation accounts which are totally unrelated to one another and which blatantly contradict each other in Genesis. Nice try but no cigar!
That I had such a notion is a figment of your imagination. Yes, I think there are two stories; that I suppose them "two creation accounts which are totally unrelated to one another and which blatantly contradict each other" is a slanderous fabrication.
What you need to keep in mind is that this is a Christian forum and it's the inspired word of God we are talking about. It's the inspired word of God even if there are two creation accounts. It's the inspired word of God even if neither one of them is 100% accurate literal history.Then I misunderstood your intentions.
That occurs sometimes when the argument seems to be striving to help the opposition.
In such cases the ability to read minds would greatly come in handy.
Good to hear you are on my side of the issue.What you need to keep in mind is that this is a Christian forum and it's the inspired word of God we are talking about. It's the inspired word of God even if there are two creation accounts. It's the inspired word of God even if neither one of them is 100% accurate literal history.
I'm not sure about that. I believe that that there are two creation accounts, neither of them 100% accurate literal history. I don't think that belief "makes Christ a liar" or affects my salvation.Good to hear you are on my side of the issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?