| richardhutnik said: The text goes and explains why it was needed for those who believe don't perish. It isn't there to explain HOW one ends up getting it. What you said is better for describing it, but ends up getting real close to salvation by human effort, or sincerity of effort, rather than the works being a fruit of God in the life of a person active by the person trusting. And also a matter of trust, the real faith that matters, is devoid there. That is faith as mental affirming, rather than trust. The problem by telling people they need to accept a message is the real matter of who accepts what is in the wrong area, and the isuse of real faith (trust) is missing also. And this is the issue I have with it. Maybe others but this is what is at the top of my mind now on the subject. |
But why does it explicitly state that whoever believes won't perish but will have eternal life?
I meant it not to come across as salvation through human effort, but by accepting God's gift of salvation. I tried to explain just what I think that means, but I do believe that no matter how good you are in this life, you will never be good enough in God's eyes. This has been a common theme from every Christian I have personally asked, which I know is anecdotal evidence. If this is true (that no human effort can lead to salvation), then the only deciding factor left that I can think of is faith. That is why I made the claim that to be saved, you must accept Jesus' sacrifice. Doing so requires only that you accept the gift that God has offered to you.
| fighter said: so the fact that every religion assumes their belief is rational doesn't strike as illogical ? they are implicetely denouncing each other... In fact, both christianity and islam have had revisions and scissions, the torah itself has been regulraly re-interpreted... isn't that a logical indicator of their fallaciousness ? How can they pretend to incarnate the word of god and evolve at the same time ? how can they pretend they contain eternal words of an eternal being when in fact they are the language of a specific region at a specific time ? when they contain flawed logic and oxymorons like jesus being both god and a man at the same time... if jesus is a god he didn't suffer as a man if jesus is a man god is as inaccesible to him as to us the whole book is full of these absurd dualities : - god would be one and still "contain" father / son and holy spirit they even missed the correct date for jesus' birth by 70 years... it's like a very bad novel based on very few facts and a lot of goofyness from semi-cavemen |
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a religion is true, it should be logically consistent. I'm not saying that any are, and I'm not saying that any believers of any religion are or are not claiming their religion to be logically consistent. I am arguing that Christianity is not as logically inconsistent as I once thought (but I admit that I still struggle with some things), and thus far I have struggled in very few places with what seems to be a logical inconsistency within the Bible. Even if I were to find a bunch, I still plan on seeing this through to the end in the hopes of better understanding Christianity.
A revision of a holy text by humans could create a logical inconsistency. I have chosen to use many translations of the Bible, and when faced with a contradiction, to attempt to stick as close as possible to the oldest translation. I also have an excellent resource in my sister, who knows Hebrew. I believe that this will be the closest I can come to the word as it was originally created (whether by man or by God). And I do believe that a God who created everything would be powerful enough to create and protect his word, so if this search turns up contradictions, then that would likely disprove Christianity in my mind.
God created man in his own image. Jesus being both God and man is not a contradiction within the context of Christianity. In his human form, he certainly was capable of doing some things that we cannot; you can think of Jesus as a physical incarnation of God (the son).
The problem with applying logic to God himself is that I don't believe we can. I don't think that we can comprehend a being capable of creating an entire universe, however he did it. We are to him as animals are to us, in the sense that an animal can't fully comprehend us. That does not stop one from applying logic to God's word and I do believe that a God who created everything would make his word logically consistent with the world he created, otherwise it would not require faith to believe but a complete rejection of everyday observations.
You and I (and everyone else) will never comprehend the Trinity in this life. It is beyond us to fully understand God, and that is why religion ultimately requires faith, and why logic can only point you in a direction. It can't take you the rest of the way. That's why I want to focus on the word of God, which I do believe should be logically consistent if true.
