Matthew 13:34

"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable."

Have a look at Matthew 13:16.

"But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear."

 

but that's the point

it doesn't

you simply answer a valid question with the "you will know"

aka the "miracle of revelation"

it was dealt with in the cartoon I posted earlier

 

Apologies, meant penultimate point:

"the analogy with science is false as science has no preconceived starting point"

 

And in answer to your challenge about my "you'll know" response, well, it's true. It is only after one has taken a leap to faith that they can 'know'. I can get in to the technicalities of predestination and election if you wish, but I'm not sure it would have been of any help to our friend on the previous page.

 

Another thought , Jesus was sent to save sinners , correct ?

So if there are no sinners then no need for Jesus to come , but then nobody gives God a thought , so nothing to have faith in , there for , everyone goes to hell .



I can't understand why having faith in God is the important thing , why is it not enough to just live as he says we should, without giving God a thought at all .



Is it perhaps that to control people and make them behave nicely they had to be threatened with hell and given the idea of heaven as a reward ?

 

do you ever wonder why that throughout the ages, religious teaching and subsequent interpretation of the texts has changed to accommodate science and the new scientific discoveries

but never the other way around

 

I've just been out in my break from my work. It has been nice and sunny here so far. Every ray of the sun, when it kissed me, just re-vitalised me to do even better at my work that I really enjoy and love.

 

I think Catholicism was abused by Rome and her empire and wielded as a form of control. The same charge cannot be levelled with such certainty at Protestantism.

Regards your first question, the sinless world will be the New Jerusalem as prophesied.

 

The Word is infallible, it's just our interpretation of it that's flawed. Science evolves as do humans and as such we can reflect back upon the Word with increasing accuracy and understanding.

 

Hi,
I believe there is a very close link between religious belief and superstition.
Some people are too superstitious to question their own faith and are too frightened to stop praying or following their religion - just in case they get struck down (figurative or literally!)
Touching a crucifix, making sign of the cross, crossing your fingers, touching wood - all very religious/superstitious actions.
Stronger willed people will walk under a ladder without fear - those same people might also feel inclined to challenge religious assumptions and norms.
Cheers
Steve

 

The thought is , if a person lives there life without any sin but also without giving any thought at all to God , does he go to heaven , ?

 

Again, this is true to a certain extent with regards Catholicism, but not Protestantism. I am not superstitious.

 

The only person to have ever lived a sinless life is Jesus.

 

An hour old baby ?

 

Glad you're having a nice day, Swati.

 

Inherently sinful.

 

So straight to hell ?

 

OK, this is the text saying something happened. We will agree to disagree on the content, or the intent, that much is obvious. However, there is nothing there to indicate it is true, any more than in Genesis, or Exodus. The way they are presented in the same way - someone says something happened. Although the first passage you have quoted talks about Jesus talking (or not) in parables, the actual story itself, about Jesus, written after the fact, by someone who never met him, that does not say.


The Gospel according to Matthew does not start "This is a true historical account" whereas Genesis would start "Actually, this is all metaphor, it didn't really happen this way but it may give you important pointers in life"......


The second quote is utterly meaningless in the context of the question I am asking.

 

No. A baby has not wilfully sinned.

 

Ok. As I said earlier you're free to deny the Gospel - I can't argue somebody in to faith, I can merely defend it.

It's written for people with eyes to see and ears to hear.

On the contrary.

Owing to your physicalist worldview you seem to need everything rigidly spelt out for you. What's your favourite poem? Do you enjoy art?

 

So has this poor baby unwittingly sinned? Just by existing? If it doesn't go to hell (assuming a sad and sudden death) where does it go?

Gary77, in his way, is asking some very searching and relevant questions and gettting some unsatisfactory answers. And who says that Jesus is the only person to have lived a sinless life? Who can think that, much less prove it?

 

According to Scripture we are all born in to sin, but as the child has not wilfully sinned it will go to heaven.

Gary's asking some terrific questions! The Bible says that Jesus is the only person to have led a sinless life (he is the new Adam) and as such I believe it. Literally.

 

again that is simply approaching something that has a predetermined position - aka the word is infallible

and science evolves to fit it

no - as I said it has been the other way around

religion has evolved around science - that is the way science works, and actually the way religion has worked - it has evolved around science

you see that is why "and a miracle occurs" cartoon simply devastates your position - you will always invoke the miracle "joker" card

 

A child can't wilfully sin because it doesn't know what is a sin ?

Can a person wilfully sin if they don't know what is a sin , mentally disabled people ,children and those that have never heard of religion , maybe a tribe in a rainforrest for example ,

 

You make it sound like I am denying something backed up by proof, that you can cross reference with other sources, but that simply isn't so.




It's written for people to interpret any way they wish. You see or hear what you want.




You talk about straw men, what has that got to do with anything we are talking about. I could like the stories in the bible (and let's face it some of them are cracking stories, but so is Dracula), but that doesn't add anything to the argument of whether they have any basis in fact.


I could like a painting, or a sculpture, that has no bearing on their authenticity. Their authenticity is irrelevant to my feelings about them. However, your feeling towards Christ, or Christianity, is wholly dependent on the fact you think it really happened.

 

Didn't moses get banned for continually posting religious mumbo jumbo?

 

As a Christian I have come to reason that it is.

I said that science evolves.

This is incorrect. Our understanding of the world has improved, but Scripture has not been undermined for all the reasons outlined throughout this thread.

No. As I stated, humanity has evolved and so our understanding of the Book of Words and the Book of Works is becoming more complete. Where did the faculty of human reason come from?

Scientism is incomplete. It sits inside theistic evolution.

 

Scientism is incomplete. It sits inside theistic evolution.


in your mind maybe !


and scientism is a made up word

 

Jtaylor, Did you see my last post ,number 564

 

been covered mate.

you cant sin unless you've got religion first