Evidence for God from Science

the sleep of reason wrote:go back to what kuri said. it's anti-christian to say there is but any way than christ. yes the bible says do not condemn but it aslo says there's no other way. everything you just said here is a contradiction within itself. either christ is the only way or it's not. again, go back to what kuri said.

That's right.. Christ is the ONLY way. How is it contradicting to say that his way isn't?

the sleep of reason wrote:i've explained my point over and over. to prove i'm not just contentious, i answer every question asked as throughouly as i can and try to rebutt with counterpoints and reasons. unlike you, i never make assumptions on how educated someone is nor do i tell anyone what they understand or question their faith.
you do--and that's fine. a lot of so called christians do this. it means nothing to me, other than demonstrated and closed, hardened heart.

Oh, so now I'm told I have a closed and hardened heart... Thanks.

the sleep of reason wrote:what i seek to reconcile is somethin that--since you are telling me what i do or do not understand--i will say YOU dont understand. which is that your idea of what 'christianity' means has been boiled down to something that's no longer christianity.

Ok... Again you are demonstrating to me that you understand it. So prove it....

the sleep of reason wrote:if you propose a hindu or any other faith could find God on their path, you're not christian because that's saying there's another way than christ. the reason i cant say i'm christian is because i DO believe God is fair and just and perhaps DOES judge our individual hearts.

I don't believe that the Hindu faith or any other faith is the path to God. I believe that Christ is the way to God...

the sleep of reason wrote:i think YOU actually agree with me, and i think actually you and me have exactly the same idea of what christianty means. however, if you'll read what kuri is saying and a few others here--they disagree with your 'more than mere words, more than the teachings' ideals. they maintain knowning in our hearts is not enough, that it's wrong, and our salvation is only 'true' if we cross check it with what other men think (i.e. the bible/church). furthermore they contend that anyone outside of hearing the word of the christian bible cannot be absolved.

I think you should really read this article by Rich Deem.. Here is the conclusion at least....

"I know there are many Christians who say that all those who die without faith in Christ will be relegated to spend eternity in Hell - even if they have never heard the gospel. I think scripture suggests otherwise - that we are judged on the basis of what we know and how we act upon it. This is not any sort of ecumenical theology or "all ways lead to God." Those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and have refused to believe have rejected Him, and, as such, will fall under the condemnation of God, because they have rejected His provision for our disobedience.2 Therefore, atheists are still without excuse8 in rejecting God. Those who perpetrate evil, even without the knowledge of the gospel, will likewise be condemned, since they have violated their God-given conscience. In the same way, those who play the "religion game" of going to church on Sunday, but living apart from a relationship with God, will be condemned.9"

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

the sleep of reason wrote:you disagree with this.
as do i. i think we are totally of like-minds on the true nature of salvation.
as i understand, you think, tho, that perhaps i'ts not necessarily 'unchristian' to find God via other means. (no? isnt that what you mean by 'more than mere words/everpresence of christ's message?)

No... I don't think you can find God via other means. Maybe portions, but not the entire message. But that doesn't mean that you are automatically condemned to hell. The only one that condemns ourselves to hell is ourselves...

the sleep of reason wrote: if so, i agree. but that is clearly a contradiction of biblical dogmas and commandments.

And what are the biblical dogmas and commandments? The ONLY way is Christ?

the sleep of reason wrote:kuri and others maintain this is not possible. a lot of christians to as well.
i guess i agree that it is anti-christian to believe what you and i believe. some how you dont see it as a disagreeing, but kuri and others here do.

If you believe that God will judge others fairly, then I agree with that too... The thing is, so does Kurieuo and the God of the Bible.

the sleep of reason wrote:that is why i feel like it's kind of a black and white issue. to believe christ's message and God's love transcends biblical commandments and strict christian ideals is anti-christian, so how can i call myself a christian without condeming all others to hell?

Again... The message of Christ says that we don't condemn others to hell. That's God's job to judge... We ultimately send ourselves to hell... Now, I may have a reason to believe that someone may be sending themselves to hell (which may be true), and try to help them, but ultimately it is God who knows the heart of man...

It seems that the whole point you are trying to make is that the God and the Bible is one big contradiction... This is not a new accusation at all... People have tried this many times... I'm not convinced you have.

"I know there are many Christians who say that all those who die without faith in Christ will be relegated to spend eternity in Hell - even if they have never heard the gospel. I think scripture suggests otherwise - that we are judged on the basis of what we know and how we act upon it. This is not any sort of ecumenical theology or "all ways lead to God."

this is exactly what i believe--however, i think this article stops arbitrarily short. that is, the line "judged on the basis of what we know and how we act upon it." that sentence is accurate of what i believe of salvation--what we know and how we act upon it. that being said, i think the second part of the paragraph you quoted stops short when it says "those that know christ and reject his message will be condemned." that is, how clearly must one understand the message of christ to be totally held accountable for it? i believe, yes, that if you fully graps the concept of 'good' (righteousness, godliness, kindless, love, etc) and deliberately and consciously act against it and behave 'evil' (murderous, greedy, sinful, hateful, selfish,etc) then you are thus 'rejecting the word of God (or christ.) however, what about those in my ubiquitous examples of rural africans or hindus or unitarians or whoever else that may or may not have a full grasp (or exposure to and/or complete teaching of) christianity, but still seek God?
is that not the same criteria of judgement? shouldnt they be judged on 'what they know and how they act on it?" i think it's a misconception that just bcause you hand someone the bible they should be held accountable for christian doctrines and judged under christian law. this should be no more true than the judgement of hte ignorant because obviously understanding, exposure and rational congnative digestion of the data are elements of 'what they know and how they act on it."

another way of saying this is that me, being from oklahoma, the heart of the bible belt, know MUCH MUCH more about christianity and it's ways than my turkish friends who live in an islamic nation. so should they be held accountable for 'what they know and how they act on it?" yes, i think so. we're not all equally exposed to christianity nor do we all have an equal understanding of it. so, like the article suggests, we should all be judged accordingly to 'what we know and how we act on it." and as such, i understand that God probably loves us all, and want us to glorify Him and seek Him and try to be godly, loving, spiritual beings. here i am clearly acting on 'what i know' and how i understand it. if it's wrong, how can i be any more accountable than an under exposed christian? because my ability to grasp it is not as strong?

it's like math. everyone in the same class takes the same test. some do well, others do not as well. some study harder and get it more, others skip the chapter headings and ace the tests. effort and love and care really have no bearing on how well anyone understands it. it's a matter of understanding and congnative skill.
given the same analogy, i think we all agree (and the article confirms--and says scripturally confirms) that we cant just yank a stranger off the street and hold him accountable for the math material from the class he never entered. of course he cant pass that test.

spirituality is a giant math class and we're none of us in it together. we're all yanked off the street, trying to take a test that PEOPLE have standardized, even if those people claim God told them what questions to put on the test. that test is what we humans deem 'spiritually adequate to make heaven'.
but i still contend we should be judged by our hearts since there is not a universality of data or a single class of data for us to all join, if you will.

argue that 'there is one single class, and that class is christianity and anyone can enter it!' ok, but not everyone is going to understand christianity the same.
as hardly any of us do. so we should then be judged on what we know and how we act on it, no?

It seems that the whole point you are trying to make is that the God and the Bible is one big contradiction... This is not a new accusation at all... People have tried this many times... I'm not convinced you have.

i'm not trying to make that point--i'm trying to make the point that maybe you can get to God's glory even if you live on an island and never get a bible. that's all.
i do think the bible is the inspired word of God...written by men. then hidden by men, lost by men, found by men, compiled by men, translated by men, and circulated by men. i think you have to have a certain amount of subjectivity from that point on. if anything, the talmud or first five books or whatever stand the most likely as uncorrupted. i think trusting your salvation to the rest of it and it alone is scary, because that's putting 100% of your faith in man.

i think it's ludicrous to think God cannot speak to us and move our hearts. several here say they'd never ever trust their own hearts, but what do you do with the holy spirit? that's what the holy spirit is, divine guidance. do you not believe in that?
have none of you ever felt the presence of God in your life, that you should be moved to do something? something perhaps you didnt want to do but you knew God wanted you to because it was the right thing to do or would help someone out?
i sure have. i know the presence of God and that is why i have proof He exists. i've seen miracles, i've seen unmitigated evil. none of these things that confirm my faith in God require me to confer with other men. likewise, knowing i really like something--be it pizza, a flavor of soda, music, or my soulmate--requires no conferring with other men. we are fickle. we are misled and wrong, that is the nature of humanity. fallible, wrong, wrong.
that is why i'm so confounded by your answers. you say the hearts of men are evil and wrong, especially our own, so we'd better trust what OTHER men say is the right way to salvation.
unless you see God speaking to someone audibly, i dont see how you can argue God doesnt speak to me any my heart just the same.
we, none of us, saw God speak to anyone, yet we put absolute trust that they know the TRUTH. we confirm it IS truth by the fact the word says "i am truth."
many sacred texts insist upon themselves as truth as well. i dont see that as proof. i dont see how anything proves divinity, no amount facts prove divinity.

the sleep of reason wrote:

Gman wrote: Yes, but the words mean nothing if they don't live in your heart... That's the trick. Also do you not think that hindus, jews, muslims, unitarians have loving, charitable actions, kindness, or acts of godliness? Who are we to judge others?

The message of Christ says that we are not to condemn others.... So why do you think we should? I'm not sure where you are getting this...

go back to what kuri said. it's anti-christian to say there is but any way than christ. yes the bible says do not condemn but it aslo says there's no other way. everything you just said here is a contradiction within itself. either christ is the only way or it's not. again, go back to what kuri said.

I can say right now you have no understanding about the intricacies of what I believe regarding how one is saved via Christ, so please do not use me as a reference, particularly here.

the sleep of reason wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:That is nice. I would just say they are wrong. I could state a better informed council, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), in fact affirmed that an Old Earth is in fact compatible with an inerrant reading of Scripture.

ah. but my point is valid: how does one know what doctrines are vital to salvation and what are not? if so many leaders disagree, how can we know we are right? you said it's up to philosophers, and is not necessarily important to salvation.

You misinterpret me as I never said such a thing. Please re-read what I wrote. My answers regarding what is vital to salvation also lay within my previous responses.

the sleep of reason wrote:

K wrote:Getting back to Christianity, The Christian message is very simple. Do you admit you have done wrong? If you answered, "yes" that you have done wrong as I myself did, then we are guilty not even by God judging us, but by our own admittance. So how can you question that it would be unfair for God who is sovereign over us all to punish any one of us? It is only unfair if we are innocent, but from our (?) own admittance we are not innocent.

hang on, define wrong? you have to have a universality of right and wrong first, which for me is the fundamental proof of a loving God. that is, you can only admit "i have done wrong" according to your understanding of God's laws, without which there is no 'wrong."
if nothing was illegal, no one could be a criminal.

I fail to see your point... or more specifically fail to see what impact you expect this response to have on me.

the sleep of reason wrote:that being said, i think it's strange that almost every inclination that make us human also makes us a sinner. our impulses are sinful, or will is sinful, our hearts are sinful. we are lustful, greedy, selfish monsters. our mere existence is sinful; so to eve EXIST in the realm of humanity is to admit to being wrong.

Our mere existence is sinful? You are sounding more gnostic than anything Christian.

the sleep of reason wrote:so. if being anything BUT wrong is an existential impossibility, doesnt God HAVE to be a bit merciful? we're not even given a chance to be anyhting but wrong. it's a decision none of us get to make.

You are going to have to do a lot better to argue for a deterministic view rather than simply offering blanket statements.

the sleep of reason wrote:

K wrote:Firstly, it is not 3 Gods are 1 God, or that three persons are one person. Rather that three persons share one essence. It is a common JW misunderstanding which says that the Trinity is a doctrine of three gods being one god. It seems from your words further below that you may also have this misunderstanding

i dont think i misunderstand it. i see the trinity the same way i see water--it can be ice, liquid, or gas, depending on the need. i see the holy spirit as the vaporous steam, Jesus as solid tangible matter (ice) and the Father as the oh so necessary life giving liquid water.

With any analogy there are drawbacks. H2O can only exist in a gaseous, liquid, or solid state, but it can not exist as all three at the same time. Thus, it is only good in a limited respect in conceiving of the Trinity. Since you appear to now be arguing for the Trinity I now see no point in discussing your apparent "disagreements" with it.

the sleep of reason wrote:

K wrote:Now regarding the Trinity, we had a discussion on this board a while ago, and it seemed to be the consensus opinion of most here was that belief in the Trinity is not required to accept Christ and be saved. On the other hand, who Christ is was of importance to us in being saved.

i beg to differ. the acceptance of the trinity is vital to the preciousness of Jesus as our saviour. unless you accept jesus as God, he was just a guy. a profit. so i think that is fundamental to christianity.

One can reject the Trinity and still believe Jesus is divine. Please re-read what I wrote.

the sleep of reason wrote:

K wrote:Does it seem implausible to think that if an all-powerful God exists, that he could indeed take on the form of a man if God so willed to? If this isn't implausible, then whatever seemingly absurd or repulsive solutions are given by Christians to try explain this (i.e., the Trinity), it still remains that this is a real possibility despite one's inability to explain how God taking on humanity, and as such Christ being God, may exactly work.

i never meant to propose it's implausible, nor absurd, just difficult to comprehend, yet vital to salvation. you diminish it's vitality, i disagree, as noted above. i think moreover i was proposing the possiblity God the father always existed (however you want to define that) seperately from Jesus during jesus' tenure on earth. is that plausible?

I did not know you felt so strong about your belief in Christ since you appear to be intentionally misleading at worst, or smoke-screening at best, your true beliefs and points you are trying to prove.

the sleep of reason wrote:

K wrote:We here have Jesus, who was in the very nature God, emptying Himself into human form. Christ appears to have given up His sovereign authority as God which is why He was submissive and obedient to the person we know as His Father, God the Father.

this directly confirms my speculation of a seperation of jesus and God. two wills, two levels of sovereignty.

Three wills if you include the Holy Spirit. Again, I refer you to that thread I wrote regarding the Trinity. Until you read that I have nothing further to say to you on this matter.

sleep wrote:

sleep misquoting Kurieuo wrote:Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me. The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

that...is...astounding. what? REALLY? so you propose it's SAFER to trust what OTHER MEN tell us, that rather than say we know God for what's in our hearts we should double check with other people's doctrines?

What the? I never wrote that in what you quoted! Be more careful with your cut and paste jobs.

I really, really take strong exception to someone putting words into my mouth and quoting it like I said it when I never did. I take a lot of time to produce well thought out responses. So others can truly read the full response of what I wrote:

Kurieuo really wrote:Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me, especially when for example Paul said to test everything and hold onto the good. I see that such Christianity is often based on the whims and life experiences of the person. Once that person's life falls into, or continues in turmoil, God is gone for such a person. For such a person, God becomes associated with the "impressions" and a "feeling good" experience in worship, prayer, at church or what have you. I have seen such people in life, it seems bitterness usually sets in against God because God must not be there is He does not keep impressing good feelings into them, and they eventually leave with tide of their emotions.

sleep wrote:this is the biggest indication of putting your faith in men rather than God. am i wrong?

Yes you are.

sleep wrote:

STR - Koukl wrote:Hasn't it been the case, friends, that you've felt absolutely certain about something that later turned out to be false? Of course you did. And the question is: How do we protect ourselves from that error? How do we represent the truth of Christianity to another person who may not be sharing our subjective certitude, or our subjective experience?

i guess you ask someone else, and that's how you know. i dont mean to be a smart-alleck but wow.

Feel free to be a smart all you want. If another person does not share your subjective certitude then I guess you will not be able to spread the Gospel.

sleep wrote:are you married? how did you know you love your spouse? have you redundancy checked every other subjective part of your humanity with other men, too? again, not trying to be a jerk or anything here but i'm really astounded by the implications of that statement. by that rationale, there is no truth unless another person(s) confirm it as such.

Again, you presume to know too much of my epistemic beliefs and what I see counts as justification and what does not. I will keep these pearls for someone I see as more fitting.

sleep wrote:

K wrote:We must have some objective foundation. We must be able to point to more than just our feelings to prove the truthfulness of our faith and the legitimacy of our confidence that Jesus is in our lives.

but even still you're taking someone else's word for it. so your faith lies in their accuracy in historical context and transcription, rather than a faith in God.

There is an element of faith in everything, but someone's faith can be warranted whereas another's not. I will leave my response at that.

Kurieuo wrote:Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me, especially when for example Paul said to test everything and hold onto the good. I see that such Christianity is often based on the whims and life experiences of the person. Once that person's life falls into, or continues in turmoil, God is gone for such a person. For such a person, God becomes associated with the "impressions" and a "feeling good" experience in worship, prayer, at church or what have you. I have seen such people in life, it seems bitterness usually sets in against God because God must not be there is He does not keep impressing good feelings into them, and they eventually leave with tide of their emotions.

Koukl at Stand to Reason seems to deal with ideas such as yours. For example:

The question is actually two-fold: Is it enough for Christians to simply say, "'You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.' I have the confirmation of a subjective experience. I feel Jesus.'?"

The answer is no, it is not enough to say that. Because the Mormons feel Jesus. And the New Ager feels Jesus. And a Jehovah's Witness feels Jesus. Lots of people feel Jesus. They have psychological certainty that they're children of God and that they're right with God.

The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

you didnt say this? just because i cut out the bulk doesnt much change the point. i sure didnt meant to change the point. did i?

the sleep of reason wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me, especially when for example Paul said to test everything and hold onto the good. I see that such Christianity is often based on the whims and life experiences of the person. Once that person's life falls into, or continues in turmoil, God is gone for such a person. For such a person, God becomes associated with the "impressions" and a "feeling good" experience in worship, prayer, at church or what have you. I have seen such people in life, it seems bitterness usually sets in against God because God must not be there is He does not keep impressing good feelings into them, and they eventually leave with tide of their emotions.

Koukl at Stand to Reason seems to deal with ideas such as yours. For example:

The question is actually two-fold: Is it enough for Christians to simply say, "'You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.' I have the confirmation of a subjective experience. I feel Jesus.'?"

The answer is no, it is not enough to say that. Because the Mormons feel Jesus. And the New Ager feels Jesus. And a Jehovah's Witness feels Jesus. Lots of people feel Jesus. They have psychological certainty that they're children of God and that they're right with God.

The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

you didnt say this? just because i cut out the bulk doesnt much change the point. i sure didnt meant to change the point. did i?

I feel it demonstrates a measure of disrespect and bad intentions to chop and concatenate someone's response as you desire, especially when one of the responses you concatenated as my own was by someone else.

the sleep of reason wrote:i think it's ludicrous to think God cannot speak to us and move our hearts. several here say they'd never ever trust their own hearts, but what do you do with the holy spirit? that's what the holy spirit is, divine guidance. do you not believe in that?
have none of you ever felt the presence of God in your life, that you should be moved to do something? something perhaps you didnt want to do but you knew God wanted you to because it was the right thing to do or would help someone out?

Sleep,

I will be brief... I don't think that is the point. Of course we can believe that God can speak to us and move our hearts. I believe however that we shouldn't "fully" trust in ourselves... We need to be careful... According to scripture we also need to examine and test our motives as well... 2 Corinthians 13:5. To claim that we've got it all down is a dangerous path I believe. Like Kurieuo was saying earlier, we need to bounce our faith off of others and God, and lay everything subjective to Christ.

the sleep of reason wrote:

JCSx2 wrote: For those who have not heard of the Bible, it is Gods will to do with them as he will. He is a forgiving God and there probably is a way to get to Heaven without hearing about it. I only assume there is a way on the fact that God is a forgiving God.

SO believing in the Holy Word of God, and believing Christ gave his life for our sins, I believe Christianity is the ONLY way to get to Heaven. No middle ground, no skirting around the word of God and getting in on a mulligan. If you have not accepted Christ as your savior before your last breath; then to bad for you.

Once again as for those who miss out on hearing about the Word of God and Christ, then it is Gods decision on taking care of them and I would like to think that our Forgiving God takes pity on them.

my point is what you jsut said is a practical impossibility. your statements totally contradict each other. you cannot say Christianity is the ONLY way to get to heaven then say it's God's decision on taking care of them (that didnt hear the word of God). it can only be the ONLY way or you have to say it's one of apparently a FEW ways.

They do contradict each other, I agree with that. But it is my HOPE that God forgives those who never get to hear the Word. I don't actually know that they do get to Heaven, but assuming from Gods forgiveness it “may” be a possibility.

That is the only thing I can logically give an exception to. (in my mind) And that exception does not shatter the foundation of Christianity for me. I can live with that comfortably

Other Religions NOT Christian, who have heard the Word of the Lord and not accepted it, I do not give them an exception because I know that the Bible does address these issues.

The one thing it does not address directly (well actually many things are not addressed directly) "What happens to those who do not get a chance EVER to hear the word of God?" IF it does address I wish someone would show me.

I come to the conclusion of "People who do not get a chance to hear the Word, being accepted in to heaven" by other scripture that shows God as a forgiving and merciful God.

I will not let this issue destroy my faith and draw me away from the Word of God i.e. the Bible because my human mind is to puny to comprehend the complexity of God and his creation.

Because you have issues with not understanding everything in the Bible in a black and white picture, I believe that the Devil will take that weakness (yes it is a weakness) and use it to his advantage to draw you away from God.

Your ticket to Everlasting Life does require some faith,

Webster's definition of faith is:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Notice where is says “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”

Don't let the Devil sway you because you need actual physical proof on everything. There is enough physical proof that God exists and there is enough in the Bible to keep you on a path to Everlasting Life.

The Bible does not say “If you do not hear these words, or anything about Jesus Christ, The Lord God on High will accept you anyway.”

Because it does not say that you are questioning a lot about God, questioning God is not necessarily bad, Abraham questioned God and had God change his decision because if his questioning him.

But questioning him to the point that you feel that there is “No need for a Bible” that will probably not take to a happy place.

zoegirl wrote:actually I was asking sleep specifically, but glad to know

As for expressing oneself, I agree with jen, you do fine. Although reading Lewis will certainly make anyone desire his eloquence.

Jen, Zoe,

Thank you for the Kind words.

Gman wrote: I will be brief... I don't think that is the point. Of course we can believe that God can speak to us and move our hearts. I believe however that we shouldn't "fully" trust in ourselves... We need to be careful... According to scripture we also need to examine and test our motives as well... 2 Corinthians 13:5. To claim that we've got it all down is a dangerous path I believe. Like Kurieuo was saying earlier, we need to bounce our faith off of others and God, and lay everything subjective to Christ.

how does one bounce their beliefs off God, and how do you confirm God's will for your beliefs?

They do contradict each other, I agree with that. But it is my HOPE that God forgives those who never get to hear the Word. I don't actually know that they do get to Heaven, but assuming from Gods forgiveness it “may” be a possibility.

thanks for admitting this. i cant see why it's such a difficult thing for people to admit. it doesn't really change much to make this statement...

That is the only thing I can logically give an exception to. (in my mind) And that exception does not shatter the foundation of Christianity for me. I can live with that comfortably

granted. but can you see how some other's might feel more strongly about the contradiction of the statement, and perhaps have a more of a struggle with it?

I come to the conclusion of "People who do not get a chance to hear the Word, being accepted in to heaven" by other scripture that shows God as a forgiving and merciful God.

agreed. but what about the post by sleep suggesting that this same exception may also be applied to those based on their understanding the scripture as well?

I will not let this issue destroy my faith and draw me away from the Word of God i.e. the Bible because my human mind is to puny to comprehend the complexity of God and his creation.

Your ticket to Everlasting Life does require some faith,

i believe the bible demands faith, not just requires "some."

Notice where is says “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”

as i understand it, that is the meaning of 'faith.' that being said, how does one prove God (or truth in religion) via science?

But questioning him to the point that you feel that there is “No need for a Bible” that will probably not take to a happy place.

coming into the discussion so late, i've not read everything. but i would like to say that as i understand the threadstarter, it's not a discussion to disprove the bible (or confirm non-belief) but to rather understand the inherent value of sacred texts and their bearing on salvation.

>>faith<< can be an inherent trait in an individual. If you have trouble believing in things there is (at least in YOUR mind) insufficient evidence for, no amount of wanting to can change that basic personality trait.

DB