Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

Is the parable of the shepherd and the lost sheep completely lost on you?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As far as I know, whenever Jesus said "I never knew you", it was only after they had already rejected Him. You're welcome to post references to back up what you say. Still hung up on that "finding God" thing, eh? As I've tried to tell you before, it's the sheep that is lost, not the shepherd:

quote:

---

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Luk 15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
Luk 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

---

Not according to the parable. The shepherd "just walks away" from the ninety-and-nine to go out looking for the one lost sheep.(Returning to the topic: you're a fine example of the errancy of funamentalism but, no, that doesn't disprove the God of the Bible. It only proves your lack of understanding of Him.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Matthew 7 is future tense. Jesus will turn his back on those who reject Him. Your claim was that He already did it here on earth. Your own quote says "he who does the will of my Father". It is certainly not a matter of heart (belief). It is a matter of action. You're confusing two stories. The lost sheep that Jesus seeks has nothing to do with the division of the sheep from the goats. And we are all the children of God. No. He's on the subject of people who become "as little children" - not literal children. And yet you misunderstand a simple parable.(You're welcome to come and show your understanding of the Bible in the Bible Study forum. )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay, I'll type slower: the Shepherd turns his back on the ninety-and-nine which are not lost (the righteous). You claimed that He turns His back on those who reject Him - exactly the opposite. He specifically goes out to find the one which is lost - the one which has "rejected" Him.In the future, when we are all judged, then and only then will Jesus reject those who rejected Him. Until then, the rejectors have the inside track. To be in Christ, you must do what Christ wants you to do: love God and love thy neighbour as thyself. Those who say they are "with Christ" or "in Christ" (those who say "Lord, Lord") are the ones who are not "in Christ". They are the goats. What the #$%@ are you talking about? First you say there were no goats and then you say the goats don't go to heaven. The goats that don't exist?I said you were confusing the story of the lost sheep with the story of the sheep and the goats. Clearly you are. No. The ninety-and-nine are the righteous who do what is right:

quote:

---

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

---

(In the sheep/goats story, the sheep are also the ones who "do unto the least of these, my brothers". Doing, not believing.) Not necessarily "humble". You must be trusting like a child. It's all the same figure of speech. There's no sudden shift from figurative children to literal children. He's still talking about all the children of God. No. He's talking about all of the things that people do to each other. Why would you say that? How do you get that from the text?First, He says we must be like children to get into heaven. Then he goes on to talk some more about children. Where do you see a sudden break from figurative children to literal children? What verse? Have you ever met a child? The last thing that children do is treat other children well. But you've misunderstood it if you think it's about literal children.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay. Done that. No. Literal children may get a "free ticket in" because they have not yet learned right from wrong. But all of the sheep are not literal children. All of us who "do unto others" are sheep and all of us who "do not unto others" are goats. This is your main problem.In the shepherd/sheep story, the shepherd does go looking for the sheep. That's in the present. That's what's happening today. God comes looking for you - you don't have to go looking for poor little lost God.The sheep are not literal children. They are all of us.In the sheep/goats story, the tense is future. The sheep will be separated from the goats based on their behaviour.Again, neither the sheep nor the goats are literal children.Two different stories. Your "blending" is inappropriate. Doesn't it?We are all God's children. We are all God's sheep (in the shepherd/sheep story ).We are all part of the hundred. It's just that some of us are the ninety-and-nine and some of us are the lost one.There are no other gods (shepherds). There are no other "stray" sheep belonging to another flock. I expect Jesus used the same parables more than once. I don't know if we can tell from the text whether Matthew and Luke were refering to the same incident.But the account in Luke doesn't mention any children before the parable - which is why I don't see how the children and the sheep can be the same story. Why would Luke omit the first part of the story? Been there, done that. Don't much like the New Improved Version. Here again, we have to remember that there is more than one gospel (if only one Gospel).Mark and Luke use the same wording:

quote:

---

Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

---

quote:

---

Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

---

No mention of humility there. More like being "receptive".Matthew talks about humility:

quote:

---

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

---

But it isn't explicitly a requirement for entry into heaven. How can the humble be the "greatest" if there is nobody else to compare them to? He doesn't actually say that some won't go. God is not willing that any should perish.There don't necessarily have to be any goats. The point of the story is that you have to do what is right to find favour with God. "Believing" isn't enough. I don't see how it applies only to children. No, not incorrect. You're just applying narrowly to literal children what should broadly be applied to all the children of God. (And you're not a "literalist", eh? )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If Einstein had said that the earth is flat, that could be refuted by somebody who doesn't understand Einstein's theories at all. Similarly, we can refute bits and pieces of the Bible without understanding the "big picture".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

My point was that you don't have to understand everything to refute something.For example, we can test the flood story by looking for a genetic bottleneck in every single species around 4500 years ago. If even one species doesn't show that bottleneck, the flood story is refuted. We don't have to understand the symbolism of the Revelation to do that.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm not making any assumptions at all. I'm simply suggesting a way to refute (or confirm) the flood story. Your claim was that we can't refute any of the Bible unless we understand the whole Bible. I'm demonstrating how we can examine individual parts of it. It's not about genes being passed down, it's about what genes were passed down. A genetic bottleneck with, say, only two giraffes surviving, would be noticeable in the genes of giraffes living today.It's not about evolution at all.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I haven't said otherwise. I suggest you study elementary English to get an understanding of what I am saying.But, as Admin had pointed out, the topic is about whether or not errancy disproves God. Since you apparently don't recognize any errors in the Bible or in fundamentalist dogma, I suppose you don't have anything to say on the topic.In my opinion, no amount of error in the Bible or in the beliefs of any given sect has any effect on the existence of God.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, that's close to the topic, but you're looking at it backwards. The question is: If there were errors in the Bible, would that prove that God doesn't exist? Saying that there are no errors in the Bible doesn't answer the question.It's like you're being asked, "If you had a million dollars, would you buy a new car?" and you're answering, "I don't have a million dollars."The question is hypothetical. It requires a hypothetical answer.Also, we're not talking about unbelievers here. We're talking about the difference between fundamentalist believers and non-fundamentalist believers. Hence the title: Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC