Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,379 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 214,082
Pageviews Today: 353,265Threads Today: 114Posts Today: 2,061
05:11 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject Say a phrase, and you are saved
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
It's good that you now accept that the Christian faith is not blind. But you seem to have ignored the accuracy and integrity of the Bible as an ancient text. This cannot be lightly dismissed just because one might dispute what the text discusses. On the basis of scholarly investigation, as I mentioned, it is established that the Bible is a quality ancient text that testifies to the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus. If you have ever read the research you would know that this is not just a wish or a self-proof. For example, there is a book called Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf. Prof. Greenleaf was a "father" of the Harvard School of Law, whose students challenged him to apply his legal methods to the resurrection of Christ. He was an unbeliever when he began his investigation, but a believer by the time he finished.

So since it is reasonable to accept the miracle of the resurrection, by what right do we summarily dismiss any other miracles in the Bible? By definition, a miracle is a violation of known scientific laws, either in the event itself or the circumstances or timing of it. So we cannot dismiss Biblical literacy on the basis of its accounts of miracles.

You say that Noah's Ark could not possibly have contained all pairs of animals and food, but this is based upon false assumptions. The animals did not need to be adults; they did not need to be all variations (e.g., a pair of wolves have the genetic capacity to produce all breeds of dogs); some may have been in hibernation. And the Ark was not what is typically shown, but a huge sea-worthy vessel: see [link to www.worldwideflood.com] .

You cite Origen about the days of creation while ignoring the fact that Origen was not a Bible writer, a prophet, or alive during creation week. God is light, is he not? And who is to say that no temporary light source could be used during the first few days? Origen is simply using poor logic and arrogance.

After that, you return to your baseless assertion that salvation by faith is blind, just because it's "unproven". This is a contradiction of your opening paragraph, since you did not dispute my explanation of the rational, forensic basis for this faith. The proof you demand has already been given, but you reject it because you want some other kind of evidence that you'd never demand for any other past event. You are using a double standard against the Bible.

As for my alleged "rigid" definition of a gift, it is no less so than your "rigid" definition of proof. You falsely assume that a gift must be used immediately and given in its entirety. Rather, a gift is a gift because it was not earned or paid for. You are thus committing the fallacy of equivocation by using irrelevant analogies. You do the same with your objection to my analogy of salvation; we will indeed "die" if we do not accept Jesus as Savior.

Re. Jesus' blood, I never said it was his suffering that saved us; you are burning a straw man here. And his statements about eating and drinking his blood were clearly metaphorical in context. Also, it is not our spiritual bodies that make up the temple of God, but our spirits, ourselves.

My claim that we are already in the Sabbath rest is hardly "hasty" since it is in scripture explicitly. Read those Hebrews passages again. Finally, when it comes to "rigid" opinions (you sure like that word!), you have plenty of your own, as I hope is obvious by now, as you clearly force-fit your own interpretations into the text at least as much as anyone else.

At any rate, I stand by my interpretations, having backed them up with both scripture and references to external support, and having exposed several fallacies on your part and that of Origen. What gets a person into heaven is not their own works or righteousness but only those of Jesus, "the author and completer of the faith". I rest on and in what He did so that all the glory goes to Him rather than me. With Paul I say,

"Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor. 1:20)
 Quoting: Keep2theCode



On Simon Greenleaf, there were those that said they never found prove of him being Atheist. What they found was that Simon Greenleaf was a lifelong Episcopalian all before he became a professor ( [link to sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com] ). Despite that, I would hope someone with Simon Greenleaf capacity to not just relied on the Gospels, but also search for other sources to confirm it. The wider the sources, the better. On resurrection, it seem very important for you to believe in Jesus resurrection. Well, for me, it's more important to experience the resurrection. I am for direct first hand experience.

Regarding the Noah's Ark, assuming you're right in all your assumptions, then how did all the baby pairs of the created kinds (Baranim) got the drive/instinct to travel to a man made boat (Gen 7:9, 7:15)?

About Origen thought on the first three days of Genesis 1, someone with common sense will raise the same question, how come there was night and day for the first three days without a shining sun. Now you came up with magical speculation of God using temporary light. Physics of sun moon star can be described by science, could you elaborate the physics of that supposed temporary light?

Regarding what you think was my double standard, you are assuming I am looking at all those miracles in the Bible as absolute literal truth like you. Actually, my reason based approach is more similar to Thomas Paine, quoting from "Age of Reason" : "It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication -- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him." To simplify, I am looking for a direct first hand experience, not contend with intellectual conclusion based of interpretation that was blindly believed as truth.

When you promote something like salvation by faith without experiencing it yourself (that's the reason I call it blind) , what you are doing is almost like selling snake oil (or to be fair, black box, that could be snake oil or pearl). The difference with snake oil salesman is that you are sincere. Look, you never go to hell, never go to heaven (correct me if I am wrong), but based on some intellectual conclusion you interpreted from a book (Bible), you assumed your belief system is the guaranteed ticket to heaven. People with the right mind will surely question your theory of salvation. If Jesus comes to me and sells the doctrine of salvation, I'd be more enthusiastic, cause He's walk the talk, He knows what he's saying and doing, he can satisfy the question of hell and heaven cause he's been there done that. And I doubt Jesus will accuse me of double standard if I asked for more prove about heaven and hell. But if someone like you who have intellectual conclusion but no direct experience, not belittling you, I know you are sincere and I appreciate it, people with the right mind of course will be skeptic and ask for more prove. It is just common sense.

You said "My claim that we are already in the Sabbath rest is hardly "hasty" since it is in scripture explicitly. Read those Hebrews passages again." Well, as I offer the verses that advised us to labor into that rest (Heb 4:11), which means we've not entered that rest, why don't you tell the explicit verse and also explain it's contradiction with Heb 4:11.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP