torquemada wrote: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...
I believe God is forgiving, so I will leave it to his hands. People can never change how it is actually worked; we can only change our acceptance of God and His will. What else can we do?
torquemada wrote: 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 can understand why they struggle with it, but I will not have it shake my faith to dismiss the Bible as Gods Word. If you read the very first post you may understand why I say this.
torquemada wrote: 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?
Please point out this post so I can further understand what you are getting at.
torquemada wrote: Your ticket to Everlasting Life does require some faith,
i believe the bible demands faith, not just requires "some."
Agreed, I responded they way I did because I get the feeling the original poster "sleeps" is lacking faith. He may not be, but I get the feeling he needs faith to accept the things he cannot understand without actual proof. He questions A LOT; questions that the answers require faith and not proof; It appears like he is losing his faith, or this is what I perceive from the postings.
Again I could be wrong on my assumption. Only he responding and straightening it out can I be sure. I probably should have said the Bible demands faith, instead of requires some faith.
torquemada wrote: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?
I do not think science will ever prove that there is or isn't a GOD.
What we can do as Christians is have faith that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, have faith that God would not allow it to be incorrectly written down when actual man wrote it down.
Now if you have faith that the Bible is The Word of God, then look in to it for some answers, look at the creation timeline for example. It goes hand in hand with how the Universe and Earth came in to existence, then oceans and land then animals, then man.
The Book of Genesis was written before humans had any sort of clue as to how we came about, man wrote what God said. (You have faith this is true or not) We can prove the Book of Genesis was written at a time where they had no scientific knowledge of these items.
I can go on and on with other examples, but I think you get the picture.
The Bible was written at a time when our scientific knowledge was minimal, but the things written at these early times can be confirmed by science.
Can scientists prove the existence of God? NO
Can we legitimize the Bible with Science? YES.
torquemada wrote: 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.
Here is the original post, how do you interpret it?Here is the original post, how do you interpret it?
by the sleep of reason on Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:16 pm
i dont know if this is the right place, but here goes:
first a little about me: i'm what would best be described as an OEC. i believe a creator God and observable science can be easily reconciled. i do NOT believe the bible gives any irrefutable evidence or even viable conjecture as to the age of the planet. i think the genealogy debate for the age of the planet is very flawed, the product of mass groupthink.
that being said, i'm trying to reconcile my belief in the bible itself. my problem is that any book that was written by MAN, which claims to be by divine guidance, and in itself warns of the fallibility of man and against putting faith in man, for this reason is a book that is self-referentially contradicting. if men are flawed and men wrote the book then the book can't be infallible truth.
i've grown up protestant christian, the son of a preacher. my education has opened my eyes to other religions and science, but i have yet to find anything to even remotely sway my belief in God. however religion is something i'm skeptical of, and it makes me doubt the bible.
so my question is: how can the bible be absolute truth if it was written by men, while inside itself it tells us that having faith in man is the way of death?
how important is it to have a text of absolute truth in order for the ONE TRUE GOD to still exist?