From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:17:58 GMT

gleasont@lonex.rl.af.mil (Todd C. Gleason) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713176701@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>Todd C. Gleason writes:
>>
>>>So I want to ask you:  If you are going to take the Bible at its literal
>>>truth, then how do you explain that God always referred to himself in the
>>>plural form, as "we" and "us"?
>>
>>  god is the father, son and holy spirit.  trinity or triune god.

>I don't buy that, especially with the parts where the "Sons of God" came
>and took wives among the people of the Earth.  Sounds like a "they" thing
>to me, and also explains (in a scientific manner which I can believe, not
>in some over-blown religiously chanted ritual) how we got from just Adam
>and Eve to an entire world, with an adequate gene pool.  

  could you tell me where in the bible are the sons of god you're refering
to?  i may be able to answer then.

>>
>>>My soul, if I have one, is in no jeopardy, let me assure you.  I don't
>>>practice murder or adultery or promiscuity or any other of a hundred of its
>>>supposed abominations.
>>
>>  well, that's a good start, but what keeps you from going all the way
>>and recognizing jesus as the way, the truth and the life and the only way to
>>go.  if you don't recognize jesus, i wonder why you accept any of the
>>biblical package deal about heaven, hell and judgement.  why bother with any

>Just because the Bible said it does not mean I disagree with it.  I don't
>accept the Bible at face value, I don't believe that the *Bible* is God.
>It has passed through mortal hands and mortal sins as well (like the dreaded
>"falsification" and the equally diminishing "ignorance" which have corrupted
>some, though by no means all, of it); it should be questioned just like any
>history.  

  but if you're not certain about some parts of the bible because it's
been tampered by human hands, how can you trust any of it?  and btw,
i don't believe the bible is god either.

>>to clear up any misconceptions, you can't have eternal life and go to
>>heaven if you don't accept jesus as your way to get there.  we aren't

  what the bible means by accepting jesus is recognizing that he is god
and he will redeem our sins.  which is not how you accept him, i think.

>I accept Jesus.  I never said otherwise.  I just don't accept him in the
>exact same way as you do.  Actually, the stories of Jesus are just about
>the least corrupted in the Bible; they suffer only small inconsistencies,
>generally speaking.

  i'm gonna sound thick headed here [:) ] but on what basis do you accept
*some* things about jesus and not accept others?

>>being judeged on 100 abominations.  god's offering to take us to him through

>>jesus if we accept him.  if we choose not, why bother with any of the
>>christian package deal?

>I belive in God, just not in the way that you do.  I used to believe in God
>the same way you do.  Now I'm enlightened.  Or at least I choose to think
>so.  I'm sure you disagree--strongly.  Please try to limit your future flames
>to less indignant screaming.  The signal-to-noise ratio is hurting, and this
>is the wrong newsgroup besides.

  i'm not sure what newsgroup you're reading this in, but this is
talk.religion.misc.  and i'm sorry if it's felt like i'm flaming you.  i
thot i was having an open-minded intellectual conversation.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc