Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 306 (221214)
07-01-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Philip
07-01-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Who did Cain marry?
Very well. The YEC literature I think I saw shyly suggested 8 children per family as an arguement.
Doesn't that seem awfully paltry for so many years and such strength of body? I don't get why Noah only had three sons in his 900 years myself.
Interesting that you note cat DNA as also devolving and correlating somewhat to that of human beings.
Cats and other animals get cancer and all kinds of diseases, but those things are the result of sin and yet we don't think of animals as capable of sin, so it seems to me it must be explained in terms of the creation's having been cursed for our sake somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Philip, posted 07-01-2005 5:00 PM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by docpotato, posted 07-01-2005 5:07 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 306 (221218)
07-01-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by docpotato
07-01-2005 5:07 PM


Re: The Clowns of Science
"For whatever reason" doesn't mean I don't know the reason, it just means the reason is not relevant to the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by docpotato, posted 07-01-2005 5:07 PM docpotato has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 306 (221238)
07-01-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Philip
07-01-2005 5:37 PM


fertility
Perhaps Noah's wife had additional "unmentioned" children within the 300 years Noah survived after the flood. But it seems to me to violate scriptural parsimony:
Gen 9:19 states: "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread."
Sounds exhaustive to me.
Also, Abram's wife (though commended (sexy) unto Egypt's Pharaoh and princes) produced a 'miracle' child (Isaac) beyond her apparent conceiving years.
Nonetheless the chronology seems expedited in Gen 11 to "push" the coming in of Abram.
Not sure what you mean here, but again I have trouble grasping how they had so FEW children, and Sarah's inability to conceive, considering their health and longevity.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 06:04 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 06:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Philip, posted 07-01-2005 5:37 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Philip, posted 07-01-2005 7:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 104 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-02-2005 5:11 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 101 of 306 (221278)
07-01-2005 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Philip
07-01-2005 7:01 PM


Re: Varying children and generations
Yes, so we seem to agree on these things. Do you have an argument in support of reading Genesis 1-11 literally or Jonah? I've given two, basically the argument from many authorities starting with Jesus, and the argument that a literal reading is necessary to the overall consistency of the Biblical message. Are there others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Philip, posted 07-01-2005 7:01 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Philip, posted 07-04-2005 5:15 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 306 (221295)
07-02-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dead Parrot
07-02-2005 5:11 AM


Re: fertility
So according to the Quran he just died in the Flood, or if not, how did he survive it? Did they tie him up and carry him on board, or did he get translated to paradise to wait out the Flood with 72 virgins or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-02-2005 5:11 AM Dead Parrot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by CK, posted 07-02-2005 6:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-02-2005 6:21 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 110 of 306 (221350)
07-02-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by CK
07-02-2005 6:03 AM


Re: fertility
Interesting. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by CK, posted 07-02-2005 6:03 AM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 306 (221357)
07-02-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by LinearAq
07-02-2005 12:08 PM


Inferences / Biblical consistency
Why must the Fall be literal?Faith then writes:
So that the redemption would be literal, so that there is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. Otherwise "redemption" loses its meaning.
There is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. It's called our selfish nature.
I don't see how you make the logical connection you do here. Please explain more clearly why the fact that we literally sin means that there must have literally been a guy that literally brought that sin into the world.
My point has been that there is a consistency to the Bible as an entirety that depends on a literal reading of the Creation story. The New Testament references to Jesus as the "second Adam" and the first of the "New Creation" have meaning in relation to Adam's literal reality that they wouldn't otherwise. Jesus also fulfills a literal prophecy God gave them at the time, of a Savior who would "crush the head of the serpent" who had deceived them. So its reality ties together the promise of redemption that God gave to Adam and Eve at the time of the Fall (Eve already anticipated the Redeemer with the birth of her first son).
{EDIT: The word REDEMPTION also suggests a prior loss or debt that is to be restored:
Definition Redeem - definition of redeem by The Free Dictionary:
1. To recover ownership of by paying a specified sum.
2. To pay off (a promissory note, for example). [debt incurred at some point]
3. To turn in (coupons, for example) and receive something in exchange.
4. To fulfill (a pledge, for example). [God did promise]
5. To convert into cash: redeem stocks.
6. To set free; rescue or ransom. [Implies event of captivity]
7. To save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences. See Synonyms at save1.
8. To make up for: The low price of the clothes dryer redeems its lack of special features.
9. To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of: You botched the last job but can redeem yourself on this one. [implies loss of honor, worth etc.]}
A few scripture references:
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Tts 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Of course the meaning of redemption is clear enough in a sense without the certainty of a historical prior loss, but the prior loss gives it a particularity that ties the whole Bible together, and also ties the denouement of the devil at the time of the end back to his original seduction of the human race. If you don't have a specific beginning of sin, of the loss of innocence, you don't have a complete understanding of Jesus' work of redemption.
Also, if it were merely our NATURE to be selfish as you put it (which is an OK rough rendering of original sin), rather than a change in our nature from innocence to sin, from immortality to mortality, from life to death, the New Testament reference to a RESTORATION of a former perfection wouldn't make sense:
Acts 3:21 [Jesus] Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Commentators:
JF&B: The restitution of all things--comprehending, probably, the rectification of all the disorders of the fall.
Matthew Henry: The restitution of all things (v. 21); the new heavens, and the new earth, which will be the product of the dissolution of all things (Rev. 21:1), the renovation of the whole creation, which is that which it grieves after, as its present burden under the sin of man is that which it groans under.
Also, what part of Christ's sacrifice is less effective if the Fall is not literal history?
To be accurate, the idea is not so much that it is "less effective" as that it is better understood as the completing of a specific plan from the beginning, and that if it is metaphorically understood the Bible doesn't hang together as the perfect whole it is. My point has been that a literal reading gives a perfect consistency to the meaning of the Bible that doesn't exist with a metaphorical reading. And it does give a greater understanding of Jesus' sacrifice as it was God's plan from the beginning to reverse the effects of the Fall and original sin. Yes, I guess you can just understand vaguely that He died because of sin, but without the entire record the reality of it is less clear and complete. The complete history with a literal Genesis that Jesus fulfills is perfect and brilliant and worthy of the mind of God.
Faith writes: POint is he (Adam) wouldn't have died at all if he hadn't eaten the fruit and death is the reason for Jesus' sacrifice so that way it all hangs together. Of course if you want to deny any part of Christian theology then it doesn't hang together, it just falls into a heap of meaningless nothing.
I thought the sacrifice of Christ was to cover our sins and thus reconcile us with God the Father. That way we could be in heaven instead of Hell.
Yes, but notice that the term "reconcile" itself shows that there was a Fall, a previous communion with God which came to an end, which Jesus' sacrifice restores. Hell became the fate of sinners with the Fall.
Which part of Christian theology am I denying by not taking the Fall literally as it is described in Genesis? Do all or the majority of Christian denominations ascribe to this part that I am denying?
Majority I don't know, I would hope so. The Westminster Confession, Presbyterian but used by many Protestant churches, says this:
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646
Chap 6, Of the fall of man, of sin, and of the punishment thereof.
1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit... . 2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. 3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. 5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
Chap 8, Of Christ the Mediator
5. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased ...reconciliation.... 6. ...the work of redemption ...wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head ....
The Assemblies of God also have a statement affirming the Fall as the entrance of physical death:
the Statement of Fundamental Truths of The General Council of the Assemblies of God
4. The Fall of Man
Man was created good and upright; for God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:17; 3:6; Romans 5:12-19).
Faith writes:
This (God saying Adam would die the day he ate of the tree) has been discussed to death elsewhere. The spirit died that day and actually so did the body begin to die but the death of the entire body did not occur for another 900 years or so.
I already said it meant the spirit died. You say that physical death was brought into the world that day but God didn't mean that Adam would physically die that day. How do we know what God meant? What part of Genesis states that Adam was physically immortal before he ate the fruit?
It is an inference from the fact that God said he would die and the fact that he did ultimately die. And if Genesis itself isn't clear enough, the New Testament makes it clearer:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
That's a pretty specific real-time reference to a historical event that makes little sense if Adam and Eve are metaphorical fiction.
Why metaphorize what is better understood as literal? It simply reduces the impact. It has a lot less meaning if He died for a mere metaphor of a Fall, and to be the second Adam based on a mere metaphor of a first Adam as opposed to a reality.
It is not better understood as literal. A number of questions arise. These are off topic so don't respond to them unless answering them supports your position on reading the Bible "literally".
1. If Adam had never seen death, what meaning did God's proclaimation that Adam would die if he ate the fruit, have for Adam?
He knew God had breathed life into him. Death being the loss of that life would have to mean something to him whether he could perfectly understand it or not, and perhaps he COULD understand it because he had a spiritual communion with God that *we* can't really understand.
2. If death was not part of the world, what did Adam eat that would not die if you ate it? Tapeworms?
3. If Adam didn't know good from evil, how could he know his disobeying God was the wrong thing to do?
To name a few.
Adam most likely didn't eat animals and the death of plants isn't thought of as death. And again, no doubt by being in intimate communion with God he had some sense of the disaster that losing that communion would be. However, whether we are able to answer these things or not, my point stands that a literal Adam and a literal Fall and a literal promise of redemption, all of which are reported in Genesis, give a consistency to the overall Biblical history and a historical real-time fulfillment to specific New Testament statements about the role of Jesus as the second Adam, about the New Creation, about the crushing of the serpent's head and so on, about the meaning of sacrifice of Christ that a metaphorical reading blurs and confuses.
LA writes:
Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact?
Faith writes:
Many things are not said but are logical inferences from other parts of the Bible or in context.
Suppose I am not very familiar with the Bible. Could you string together those logical inferences for me? I'd like to see how this all fits together. Verses with explanations on how they tie into the whole conclusion you have drawn should be enough. I may want to ask follow-on questions, though.
But I have been laying these out all along. We infer the literalness of Genesis from many New Testament references such as Christ as the second Adam, the Seed of the Woman, His inauguration of the New Creation, His fulfilling the promise of the Savior who would crush the head of the serpent (and this promise of a Savior is repeated throughout the Old Testament in many prophecies), His REDEEMING us which implies a specific loss or debt, His RESTORING all things which implies their prior loss.
{EDIT: Some other New Testament references to a literal Genesis:
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-03-2005 02:33 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-03-2005 05:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by LinearAq, posted 07-02-2005 12:08 PM LinearAq has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 306 (247172)
09-29-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
09-29-2005 1:08 AM


Re: Flood
What I'm asking you to do is to suppose for the moment that the flood story was just a story - pure fiction, not a word of history in it. How would that change the message? Why would the message be any different?
It's about how sin brings death, and how the accumulated sins of the pre-flood world brought massive death, and if it didn't really happen, then we don't have to believe that sin really brings death, or that God is truthful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 1:08 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 3:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 11:42 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 265 of 306 (247178)
09-29-2005 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by arachnophilia
09-29-2005 3:18 AM


Re:
The word "erets" also means the whole earth as you say, and how many times it is used is irrelevant, as translation aims to find the best meaning for the original.
The meaning of Genesis 6 is that God intends to destroy all of mankind except for Noah and sons. That rather corroborates the idea that the entire earth was flooded, wouldn't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 3:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 4:06 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 306 (247180)
09-29-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by arachnophilia
09-29-2005 3:32 AM


Re: you missed the point
the point is that sin DOES NOT bring death, because god promised us that he wouldn't destroy us anymore no matter how worthy of it we are. it's like a parent spanking a kid a little too hard and promising never to do it again.
God doesn't say He will not destroy the earth any more. He says He will not do it by flood. The Day of the Lord is certainly a prophecy of a future total annihilation of the earth by fire.
The New Testament affirms that "the wages of sin is death" so that law has certainly not been abrogated.
God's mercy is not ignored in any of this. This is its backdrop and motivation as a matter of fact. This is why the Son of God came to save us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 3:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 4:16 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 306 (247189)
09-29-2005 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by arachnophilia
09-29-2005 4:16 AM


Re: you missed the point
Um, Arach, I'm not sure I understood much of this post of yours. Genocide vs annihilation, gigantic boat required? Not following you.
All sin contributes to death, though, even the lesser sins.
About being saved from death, it goes something like this: Salvation is a process that won't be fully realized until after death. We still have sin operating in our bodies and our bodies have to die as a consequence. Redemption starts with the spirit and is completed with the redemption of the body in the resurrection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 4:16 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 4:52 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 306 (247195)
09-29-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by arachnophilia
09-29-2005 4:52 AM


Re: technicalities
in the last days, a lot more will be saved than were in the flood, right? all of christendom, or at least all of the particular sect you happen to be in? supposedly, all of the remaining christians will be exempt from the hell on earth bits because of the rapture? then the 144,000 go to to minister to those who haven't heard?
Well, I'm not committed to that popular interpretation of prophecy. It may have some truth in it or it could be all wrong. I am more persuaded to the view that the rapture will occur at the second and final return of Jesus. The rapture in the popular scenario DOES, however, explain how believers are saved while unbelievers endure wrath. No boat needed. {Believers exist in all denominations by the way). I can't believe that anyone who is not saved in the rapture will be saved afterward, however. That doesn't fit anything in the gospel as I understand it. Nobody was saved besides those on the ark, so nobody will be saved besides those who already believe on the Last Day. But that's a side issue here.
basically, all of a religion, and a single family are a little different in orders of magnitude. it's only genocide, not anhilation.
Oh you mean because some are saved? Are you just quibbling with the term "annihilation" then? It's not genocide either, however, technically speaking, as believers from all races and tribes are to be saved, and unbelievers from all races and tribes will suffer wrath.
All sin contributes to death, though, even the lesser sins.
you sure? generally, when you sinned in ancient israel, you brought a young lamb without blemish to be slaughtered for a sin offering. and if you have no lamb? two turtledoves. the priest would snap their necks, wring out the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.
but if you couldn't find or afford two turtledoves?
God has provided sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, yes, and Jesus is the Ultimate Sacrifice. What is your point though? Living the repentant life, even living by the Proverbs, can restore life too ("It is health to the bones"), whenever one begins to do so. God said He gave His laws as a means to life -- follow them and you will be blessed in all kinds of ways, disobey and the curse is your lot. "Choose life" He said, that is, choose obedience.
Lev 5:11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.
tell me faith, do plants count here while we're on technicalities?
Jesus is the Sacrifice that ended all other sacrifices.
About being saved from death, it goes something like this: Salvation is a process that won't be fully realized until after death.
sounds like an excuse to me.
We still have sin operating in our bodies and our bodies have to die as a consequence.
so, jesus's sacrifice clenses us of all our sin, and he promises to save us from death ---
Jhn 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
but we still die, and we still see death (of ourselves and others), because this whole "not dying" thing kicks in after death?
There is an eternal death besides the bodily death. The death of the soul. It is this death He saves us from. But also in that statement He is simply claiming that He has power over death, can raise people from the dead. He did that when He was on earth, and He will do it on the Last Day when all will be resurrected to face the Judgment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by arachnophilia, posted 09-29-2005 4:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by arachnophilia, posted 09-30-2005 4:17 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 306 (247319)
09-29-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ringo
09-29-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Flood
The meaning if the flood story is that if we obey God, God will protect us.
Well, I wouldn't disagree with that. I'd just ask how much reason we have to trust that God will protect us if we obey Him if His threats don't amount to anything anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 2:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 298 by arachnophilia, posted 09-30-2005 4:47 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 278 of 306 (247333)
09-29-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ringo
09-29-2005 2:01 PM


Re: Flood
God didn't threaten the ones who were drowned either. There was no "threat", so how does a literal fulfilment of a non-existent threat improve the story?
They knew Noah was building the ark for a hundred years and ignored the implications. If God's punishments are not real, why should anything else He says be real either? Why should we obey Him at all if nothing He says is to be trusted? How on earth is the story of a worldwide cataclysm of any value in teaching obedience, unless there are terrible REAL consequences of DISobedience?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 2:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 2:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 299 by arachnophilia, posted 09-30-2005 4:52 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 306 (247342)
09-29-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by ringo
09-29-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Flood
For example, you teach your children not to hit each other. Do you want them to not do it because they're afraid of you hitting them harder? Or do you want them to not do it because they understand that it hurts the other?
You cannot learn this from a God who tells outlandish stories that imply a threat that doesn't even happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 2:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024