Logic & Faith

[shunyadragon]

No, we believe some of it is scripture and some of it is not. But since it isn't clear which part is scripture we don't rely on them.

This a selective view of the Pentateuch that varies among Muslims and I might add insistently, and I believe that the Quran is specific that it is scripture.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

This a selective view of the Pentateuch that varies among Muslims and I might add insistently, and I believe that the Quran is specific that it is scripture.

The story of Jesus' birth, death, and the concept of the trinity, the story of Lot, Solomon, and King David in the Quran conflict with the accounts given in the those books. And this would mean the Quran does not consider the current version of those books as authentic scripture.

 

[shunyadragon]

The story of Jesus' birth, death, and the concept of the trinity, the story of Lot, Solomon, and King David in the Quran conflict with the accounts given in the those books. And this would mean the Quran does not consider the current version of those books as authentic scripture.

I was not referring to the New Testament, which in response your moving the goal post. I was referring to the Pentateuch.

Concerning Solomon:
From: https://www.google.com/search?q=sol...rome.0.0l6.18440j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Sulaymān bin Dāwūd (Arabic: سُـلـيـمـان بـن داوود‎, Solomon son of David) was, according to the Qur'an, a Malik (Arabic: مَـلِـك‎, King) and Nabī (Arabic: نَـبِي‎, prophet) of the Israelites. Islamic tradition generally holds that he was the third King of Jewish people, and a just and wise ruler for the nation.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

I was not referring to the New Testament, which in response your moving the goal post. I was referring to the Pentateuch.

Concerning Solomon:
From: https://www.google.com/search?q=sol...rome.0.0l6.18440j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Sulaymān bin Dāwūd (Arabic: سُـلـيـمـان بـن داوود‎, Solomon son of David) was, according to the Qur'an, a Malik (Arabic: مَـلِـك‎, King) and Nabī (Arabic: نَـبِي‎, prophet) of the Israelites. Islamic tradition generally holds that he was the third King of Jewish people, and a just and wise ruler for the nation.

As I said the non-Islamic accounts CONFLICT with the Islamic account. Islam believes in King David but not the one that Murders and commits adultery. Islam believes in Lot, but no the one that is intoxicated and raped by his own daughters. Islam believes in Jesus but does not consider him God. The same holds for the Pentateuch.

 

[JJ50]

Logic would suggest the god featured in the Bible is a very human creation.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Once you reject the myth of original sin, then things start to get interesting.

If we didn’t fall into “original sin” as an act of wilful disobedience, there was no need to be baptized “for the remission of sins”. The idea that unbaptized babies were bound for hell is ludicrous. There was also no need for us to be “saved”, rescued, or redeemed” from a fall that never happened.

Once you reject the concept of original sin the whole package falls apart. This meant that the story of God sending Jesus or incarnating the divine person in the human Jesus to overcome “the fall” or to “die for our sins” is reduced to a little more than at best a pious nonsense and at worst a massive deception.

In the end God cannot logically rescue us from a fall that never happened, nor can God restore us to a status we never possessed.

If you choose to believe this, it’s totally cool with me as long those who believe don’t insult my intelligence by tell me it’s true.

Ok, but by whom did the original sin, originate by whom, it wasn't by Adam and Eve either, As people are being taught

 

[Trackdayguy]

Ok, but by whom did the original sin, originate by whom, it wasn't by Adam and Eve either, As people are being taught

It's a myth my friend. At the beginning of the BIble the book creates a problem which it later solves. The mythical story of original story is borrowed from countless other mythical religions that used the same
story.

1. If there;s no original sin then christ died in vain.

 

[Thief]

Once you reject the myth of original sin, then things start to get interesting.

If we didn’t fall into “original sin” as an act of wilful disobedience, there was no need to be baptized “for the remission of sins”. The idea that unbaptized babies were bound for hell is ludicrous. There was also no need for us to be “saved”, rescued, or redeemed” from a fall that never happened.

Once you reject the concept of original sin the whole package falls apart. This meant that the story of God sending Jesus or incarnating the divine person in the human Jesus to overcome “the fall” or to “die for our sins” is reduced to a little more than at best a pious nonsense and at worst a massive deception.

In the end God cannot logically rescue us from a fall that never happened, nor can God restore us to a status we never possessed.

If you choose to believe this, it’s totally cool with me as long those who believe don’t insult my intelligence by tell me it’s true.

actually......as a point of judgement.....

you are saved (salvaged)
or you are discarded

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded
if you enter....It's because you belong there
and you have been sorted out ....saved...from the fate of lesser life

 

[Thief]

Ok, but by whom did the original sin, originate by whom, it wasn't by Adam and Eve either, As people are being taught

if I may.....

Man as a species had a list of bad behavior
such as snatching things from each other....stealing
fighting and mating as do animals......adultery
plotting against one another...coveting
and as language took hold.speaking to one's own advantage.....lying against another

a change was needed
in body and mind
and so....the garden event

the pivot was to be sure Man would be curious enough about knowledge to
decide

partake and die with knowledge....or
not partake and die in ignorance

we passed the test

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's a myth my friend. At the beginning of the BIble the book creates a problem which it later solves. The mythical story of original story is borrowed from countless other mythical religions that used the same
story.

1. If there;s no original sin then christ died in vain.

The original sin happen way before Adam and Eve were created.
And way before the book of Genesis was written.

 

[Faithofchristian]

if I may.....

Man as a species had a list of bad behavior
such as snatching things from each other....stealing
fighting and mating as do animals......adultery
plotting against one another...coveting
and as language took hold.speaking to one's own advantage.....lying against another

a change was needed
in body and mind
and so....the garden event

the pivot was to be sure Man would be curious enough about knowledge to
decide

partake and die with knowledge....or
not partake and die in ignorance

we passed the test

The original sin happen way before the garden of Eden.

 

[masonlandry]

But "following Jesus" means following a real person, not an archetype of perfect goodness. The way you believe, you're basically an atheist--you don't believe God/Jesus exists--but you're following an ideal morality that you have labeled "Jesus." If you followed perfect seflishness instead, and called THAT "Jesus," you wouldn't be a Christian either. You can't just label whatever it is YOU value "Jesus" and then say you're a Christian because you're following "Jesus"--you have to actually follow the real, live, son of the real, live, God. You can't be a Christian if you don't believe God and Christ actually exist. That's not me being a snob, that's a matter of definition. A circle doesn't have four sides just because it calls itself a square.

"Following Jesus means following a real person"

Why do you think that? Jesus is still a definite character portrayed in a particular way. Whether the character is real or fictional, I'm following the same thing. If I called perfect selfishness "Jesus" that would be completely baseless. If I follow Jesus the same way one would if they believed he was real and we acted the same way, what difference does it make that one believes he was real and the other doesn't?

 

[Trackdayguy]

"Following Jesus means following a real person"

Why do you think that? Jesus is still a definite character portrayed in a particular way. Whether the character is real or fictional, I'm following the same thing. If I called perfect selfishness "Jesus" that would be completely baseless. If I follow Jesus the same way one would if they believed he was real and we acted the same way, what difference does it make that one believes he was real and the other doesn't?

I have no problem listening to some of Jesus's amazing teaching, it has bought huge change to my life. I think the masses out there dont have to much problem with Jesus or his teaching, the problems all the religious fruit cakes & fundamentalist that have latched on to him.

 

[Thief]

The original sin happen way before the garden of Eden.

that was my point....

Adam was not the first to walk this earth
He was the first to walk with God

as scripture says.....Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

and I say (quite often)......someone had to be first

 

[Thief]

But "following Jesus" means following a real person, not an archetype of perfect goodness.

what difference does it make that one believes he was real and the other doesn't?

and He said.....Do not call Me good....no one is good but the Father

is He less real for this admission?.....I think not

is He less than perfect?......He did say so

is He no longer my Inspiration?
He will always be my Inspiration

I hope to be other than His disappointment

 

[Axe Elf]

"Following Jesus means following a real person"

Why do you think that?

It doesn't have anything to do with what I think; that's how Christianity is defined.

I guess that's why I think that.

Jesus is still a definite character portrayed in a particular way. Whether the character is real or fictional, I'm following the same thing.

Not at all. In one case, you are following a person; in the other, you are following an ideal.

If I follow Jesus the same way one would if they believed he was real and we acted the same way, what difference does it make that one believes he was real and the other doesn't?

Do you see any difference in the following two statements?

"...whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

"...whosoever believeth in what He stands for should not perish, but have eternal life."

If you are able to detect a difference, then you are able to see what difference it makes. Does it make a difference to God? I don't know. I guess you'll find out.

 

[Faithofchristian]

that was my point....

Adam was not the first to walk this earth
He was the first to walk with God

as scripture says.....Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

and I say (quite often)......someone had to be first

That's right, before Adam and Eve were created, there is the 6th day creation of male and female.
And before the 6th day creation of male and female, there was the Celestial man of the heavenly.

 

[Trackdayguy]

That's right, before Adam and Eve were created, there is the 6th day creation of male and female.
And before the 6th day creation of male and female, there was the Celestial man of the heavenly.

You know this for a fact right?