My beliefs have nothing to do with the validity of the question. I like asking tough questions to Christians. Sue me. If all of the information about Christ is only contained in the bible, wouldn't assumptions be just assumptions? I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to say there... Can you clarify? Where in my question did I take the bible literally and ask anyone to defend it? I pointed out that the bible is very clear on what is required to go to heaven, in multiple places. However, many Christians believe in the doctrine of the Age of Accountability. I don't see support for this doctrine in the bible. So can someone who has never accepted Jesus as his savior go to heaven? It's a valid question, no? If you do not take the bible literally, then you are interpreting it to reconcile with what you want it to say, not what it says. I would think that if you base your life on what a book says, then you would want to follow the book as closely to it's word as possible, no?
Funny Although asking questions to people who base their lives on a conceptual being that nobody on earth has ever seen, heard, or touched doesn't necessarily make me insane. Alot of other stuff I do, maybe :lol:
So where do the other rules of faith come from if not the bible? And once again you have not explained why my understanding is errant. Every time you can't answer a tough biblical question doesn't mean it is because I don't understand it or am taking it out of context. I am asking Christians to defend their Holy Scripture. So far, I haven't seen anyone doing a very good job of it. Besides, many many many people take the bible literally. As I've asserted before, if you don't take the bible literally, you are not truly following the word of god. You are twisting what is written to conveniently fit your modern world view. I think that is a statement that even Saltyone would agree with.
Personally, I don't need an answer to that question. I already know the answers to the important questions that guide me through life. As I stated in a different thread, I didn't earn the answers nor do I deserve them but once I put my faith in God, I have come to understand precisely why I'm on this journey, where I'm headed and what it takes to remain on the right path. I no longer chase the wind which is what trying to answer that question is like.
From the oral teaching Tradition passed down from the Apostles. The best Biblical example of is in 2nd Thesolonians. Paul writes: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). Hear Paul clearly tells us that the Apostles are delivering oral teaching. The epistles included in the NT are by and large not intended for the whole Chruch but were instead written with a particular purpose with a particular purpose. The Bible is not intended to be a treatisie on moral theology or a chatechism. Your know perfectly well why the case you are presenting is flawed. I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your questions don't make sense when the proper context of the scripture is considered. If I showed you three red cars and asked you to pick the blue one you wouldn't be able to do it. The context of the color spectrum prohibits you from answering reasonably. You would ask me if I knew my colors. What you are asking is to throw out the context of a particular verse and defend it. It does not make sense. Your understanding of the Bible comes from your fundamentalist background. This a minority view of the Bible that has no historic roots. Do you understand where the Bible comes from, how the inspired books were determined? Do you understand that Christianity predates the Bible as we know it by several hundred years? I would like to see the book chapter and verse that commands the Bible to be taken literally and used as the sole rule of faith.
Phelps would say that only the gay babies burn in hell. Oh, and the Jewish babies. Oh, and the Irish babies. Oh, and the babies born to college-educated parents. Oh, and the babies born to soldiers. Oh, and the babies born in Oklahoma . . . and Topeka, Kansas. Hell, Phelps would say any baby not born to himself is going to hell.
None of your questions appear to be tough to me or anyone that has answered you. Your motivations are puzzling though. You maintain that Christians are robots and can only follow literal translations. But you keep overlooking the meanings. This has been pointed out several times. I see no reason to continue with it each time you bust out a new thread intended to indict Christianity or Christians for their beliefs. :lol: You have done it multiple times in multiple threads, including this very post I am responding to. You have discovered no fundamentalists here, yet you persist. The fact that the Bible does not lay out strict instructions about the fate of children is what you are banging on here. It requires a literal, and less than intelligent assumption about the intent of the Scriptures. It is the same argument you have made in every thread. This is just a new title. It is a valid question, and one that I answered. You might want to reread my posts. However you are not asking if children can be saved without knowing Christ. You are asking if they burn in hell if they don't know Christ. Essentially the same question, from the opposite point of view, but clearly meant to insult the precepts of Christianity and their uncaring, murdering, raping, evil God. Your motivations are clear. Pretending that you are not being condescending probably isn't fooling anyone at this point. The Bible is not the only source to God. Nor is church. Nor is proselytizing. You insist that Christians can gain no further meaning from the Bible than what is explicitly translated. This is a false premise. Wait, you just said you didn't ask anyone to take the Bible literally or defend it. Which is it? Who here has claimed to take the Bible literally? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? I base my understanding on the Bible's message, not it's literal word. It is a collection of works, by multiple authors, spanning centuries, regardless of divine inspiration. If you think a lot of beer is a twelve pack and I think a lot of beer is a case, does that mean you are lying when you tell me you drank a lot of beer but only had twelve? No, it means our perspective is different but your intent was both clear and true. This is not a complicated issue but you insist on making it so, merely because you don't believe in Christianity. I feel for you but your attempt at making Christians squirm by "asking them tough questions" does not appear to be working.
Apparently, not anyone here on TF. That is your opinion, either based upon a repressive upbringing or being a proclaimed agnostic. You keep demanding that everyone defend the Bible in it's literal entirety. It has been pointed out repeatedly this is impossible and the reasons why. I might further add, that even an agnostic has pointed this out, yet you continue in your definition of our faith as the only valid one. And of course, since your definition does not make sense, Christians are unjustifiable in their faith. This is laughable. Unfortunately it also boringly repetitive.
I keep asking you about knowledge, my friend, and you keep witnessing about faith. Is is possible that you don't understand the difference? If you don't know and don't care, just say so. But saying that you know because you believe is simply evasion of the question. I know you believe and you have a right to. You do not have a right to declare your faith to be fact. If there is anything that everyone on this issue agrees on, it is that faith cannot be proved by knowledge and nowledge cannot be proved by faith. In such a case, you would not repond. What you are trying to do is ignore the wind because you have faith it is not there.
Furthermore, Christianity existed long before The Holy Bible (which was written in Hebrew and Greek, not English) existed, and long before most people were educated enough to read it. What existed was the "Word" handed down by Jesus Christ Himself and the traditions that developed around the early church. The Bible was never inteded to be a Q and A guide to Christianity nor is it even an all encompassing account of everything Jesus said and did: 24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. John 21:24-25 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name John 20:29-31 In my opinion, our Christian faith does not soley come from the Holy Bible. Rather the Holy Bible is an invitation with the most important RSVP that we will ever consider in our lifetime.
