Posts by JosephAlward

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

I have put my faith in a God who can choose men to get his will and purpose done. My faith is strong enough in God that He has the power to MAKE men do the things that will make his Divine will happen. He will even use his enemies to do his bidding if that be part of His plan. Don't you think an all powerful God can CONTROL people?

>>How do you know these were not fallible men who might have made mistakes?<<

The men were assuredly falliable as much as you and I. The Apostle Paul often referred to his downfalls. The difference is God using them to the degree He desired to have what He wanted written down, through them. For a certainty, God could supercede the flaws of a man to have him write with infallibility the things He wanted written down, don't you agree?

Alward: If the God described in the Bible existed, it certainly could have done anything, I agree. However, you haven't explained HOW you know that the men God chose to write his story were the men who wrote the Bible. How do you know that God's bible is not the Koran? Don't just say you have faith that it's so, or that you've gotten good feelings or vibrations or signs or revelations or indescribable happiness from "knowing" that the true God is the god of the Bible, because the Moslems say the same thing about their god and their Bible, too.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

>>"..the whole thrust of Paul's debate in Romans 8 points to salvation being in our possession by means of a hope...The destination becomes beyond question, if the sealing is sure."
>>

So, you put your faith in men, too? How do you know that Paul was inspired by God to make the claims he did? Aren't you using circular reasoning to have faith that Paul was inspired, so that you might then consider yourself saved if you have faith. In other words, you believe you are saved because you CHOSE to believe you are saved. What if you chose to believe that Paul was NOT inspired, along with the other Bible writers?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Is the Flood Story True?

by JosephAlward in

those who have not yet relinquished their right to think for themselves should be virtually certain that the story of noah and the ark is a fable.

those who believe the bible's stories are literally true find it almost impossible to address with a straight face the problems presented below.. then the flood came which destroyed every living thing which was not in the ark: "and every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

" (genesis 7:23).

JosephAlward

Pom numbers:

2 pairs unclean animals (1 pair first, 1 more pair second)
8 pairs clean animals (1 pair first, 7 pairs second)

That's what I understand Noah was commanded to do.

Alward responds:

Before we go further, please explain why you think seven pairs of clean came second, but only one pair of unclean. Look at the wording:

Gen 7:1-4
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

So, Pom, if "seven...a male and its mate" really means "seven pairs," then why doesn't "two....a male and its mate" mean "two pairs," too?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

We're getting nowhere on the "love" question, and I doubt that anyone this forum is paying attention to this issue, so we might as well drop it. I'll turn your attention back to the question of your faith in men:

>>Again, you have your faith Joseph. But it is not in God. You prefer to put your trust in men.>>

Pom must think that the Bible was dropped fully formed into the desert sands to be found whole by man. Pom, have you not put your faith the men who decided which texts and traditions were to be included in the Bible, and which were not? How do you know these were not fallible men who might have made mistakes? Is it on faith alone that you believe these weren't ordinary men and that they couldn't have been wrong?

Will you answer this?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

For the third time, now, Pom has refused to explain how "love" can be something that might await the corpse in the grave, how it can be something found in death. I suspect now that Pom doesn't know how to answer this question, so I will drop it.

>>Again, you have your faith Joseph. But it is not in God. You prefer to put your trust in men.>>

Pom must think that the Bible was dropped fully formed into the desert sands to be found whole by man. Pom, have you not put your faith the men who decided which texts and traditions were to be included in the Bible, and which were not? How do you know these were not fallible men who might have made mistakes? Is it on faith alone that you believe these weren't ordinary men and that they couldn't have been wrong?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Is the Flood Story True?

by JosephAlward in

those who have not yet relinquished their right to think for themselves should be virtually certain that the story of noah and the ark is a fable.

those who believe the bible's stories are literally true find it almost impossible to address with a straight face the problems presented below.. then the flood came which destroyed every living thing which was not in the ark: "and every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

" (genesis 7:23).

JosephAlward

>>By the way, you wanna show everyone here your 1+7+1=9 logic from the Bible verses? I see one pair, then seven pair. Where's the other pair come in? Or is it a phantom pair like your two story theory>>

Before I respond to Pom, I'll repeat the relevant verses:

19 You are to bring into the ark TWO of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 TWO of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. 22 Noah did everything just as GOD commanded him. (Genesis 6:17-22)

7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

In an earlier post, Pom argued that the one pair of birds in Genesis 6 should be added to the seven pairs of birds in Genesis 7; thus, he claims, there were eight pairs of birds put on the ark:

"All one has to do is add the first pair of all birdies that were gathered up firstly, then add the latter seven pairs of all birdies that were commanded he take into the ark after the ark was completed, then any one with half a brain (and simple addition 1+7=8) would know that Noah took 8 pairs of all birdkind with him on the Ark. "

I pointed out to Pom that if he's going to treat the birds in Genesis 7 separate from those in Genesis 6, he should do the same thing with the animals. Thus, by his logic, Noah put one pair of animals on the ark in Genesis 6, then he put seven pairs of clean animals on in Genesis 7, plus another pair of unclean animals. That makes 1+7+1=9 pairs of animals.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Is the Flood Story True?

by JosephAlward in

those who have not yet relinquished their right to think for themselves should be virtually certain that the story of noah and the ark is a fable.

those who believe the bible's stories are literally true find it almost impossible to address with a straight face the problems presented below.. then the flood came which destroyed every living thing which was not in the ark: "and every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

" (genesis 7:23).

JosephAlward

Pom writes: >>The answer is that there are (at least) two different stories of the flood woven into one seemingly continuous story by an editor who alternated passages from two different authors.<<
That's Richard Elliot Friedman's hypothesis. A man made opinion that YOU Sir Joseph have put your faith in.

It is an opinion that you have accepted, not the provable truth because you nor he were there to confirm anything.

You have as much faith as I do!!
>>

I have contempt for those who accept on faith the beliefs and opinions of others on important matters; I don't know if I've ever read anything by, or about Friedman, so I would be shaming myself merely to have adopted without thinking anything Friedman may have said. Even if I have read Friedman's work, I certainly wouldn't accept anything he says on his say-so; I would check the facts for myself, and reach my own conclusions based on my own reasoning. Readers in this forum can check for themselves the validity of my claims about the creation and flood stories being written by at least two individuals; no one has to look farther than the Bible for the evidence; a graduate degree or a background in religious studies is not required to see the truth of what I've claimed. The evidence may be seen on the web pages at http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Look in the "Genesis" section of the directory for the articles which detail the evidence for the existence of more than one author of the creation and flood stories.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

Pom still has not explained how "love" can be something that might await the corpse in the grave, how it can be something found in death. Pom has sidestepped this question in order to provide other evidence that one can, indeed, know if one is saved. I completely agree that the Bible says in some places that one can be saved, and that this teaching could be used by Christians, such as RR, to "know" they've been saved. However, my point is that the Bible presents contradictory information on this matter; this is the principal theme underlying almost all of my posts. The Bible says one thing in one place, but an entirely different thing in another place. The reason there are so many different Christian sects with conflicting beliefs about salvations is that the Bible is not clear on this matter.On this basis, the Bible cannot be the word of a god; if it were, it wouldn't be so confusion to so many. An all powerful god would know how to show his Bible writers how to write a coherent Bible; since the Bible seems to be contradictory, it couldn't have been written under the guidance of a god.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

37

Can Man See God and Live?

by JosephAlward in

the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.

either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.

here is the evidence:.

JosephAlward

I've made the point in another post that the editors of the Bible often selected text or oral tradition from several sources, and these sources often contradicted each other. I've provided evidence of two authors in the flood story, and noted that two or more authors were at work in the two stories of creation in Genesis. The editors were less interested in presenting a completely consistent picture than they were in not offending those with different traditions.

The two verses below from Deuteronomy are examples of contradictions which were overlooked by the editors:

Deut 5:4-5
4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.

Deut 4:11,12
11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.

Now, Pom argues that these two verses prove that "face to face" couldn't possibly mean what it says, and there will be no way for me to prove he's not right. However, readers should note that the principal weapon Pom uses in his argumens is that the Bible HAS to be correct because (he thinks) it is the word of God; therefore, any apparent error is really not an error. For example, if the Bible said a king died in battle, but it said elsewhere he didn't die in battle, Pom would argue that the first verse MUST have meant that the king "died" a spiritual death, say.

It's interesting to watch the fundamentalists twist themselves into pretzels in their attempts to explain away every single instance of Bible error, inconsistency, or contradiction. The other interesting thing is this: The inerrantist, as he continues to put forth "explanations" for apparent error, he becomes increasingly MORE certain that his faith is correct--no matter how absurd the explanations are. Thus, engaging in debate with skeptics is a very powerful faith-building exercise for the die-hard inerrantist. The primary benefit to the skeptic in engaging in debate with this brand of Christian is that the debates are often on display for viewing by those who are beginning to question their faith and need some help in separating the fake from the real, the truth from the lies. I do what I do for those people.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

"No man knows whether love or hate awaits him (Ecclesiastes 9:1)

Pom insists that DEATH is the only topic in Ecclesiastes 9:1-11, but he still has not explained how "love" can be awaiting one who dies, if it's not, as I've argued, the type of love God gives to those who are saved. Just WHAT iind of "love" do you think the writer thought might be waiting for the corpse in its grave, Pom?

I've argued that the author is implying that the state of death of a man is no different than that for a dog, but there is a hope for man that after death there may be some kind of "love," which I associate with heaven, or salvation, but there also may be "hate," from a disapproving God, which we may crudely associate with no salvation, or perhaps a type of hell.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html