Infidel posts: 

KFC posts:

True...owning or reading a Bible doesn't save any one.  Sacred Scripture reveals God's salvation plan for humankind and from that standpoint it is a guide, but not the only guide, to eternal salvation.

Our Redemption was free in that Christ paid the price, but Scripture is clear that eternal salvation is conditional.  Scripture teaches what God expects of us and in return what He will give to us.

And if the Church be the Catholic Church, the Holy Bible would contain 73 Books. Protestants short themselves 7 Old Testament Books.  

KFC posts:

Same here.

I wonder who are those people who still believe men and women have a different amount of ribs?

only if you're talking belief. 

You cannot compartmentalize belief. You know well Scripture teaches that even the demons believe in God yet demons aren't saved. So Scripture refutes your statement.

Scripture teaches eternal salvation is conditional upon belief and obedience. That within the system of Grace, the individual must please God by his faith and obedience. If he does not please God, then he cannot be saved and God is the sole judge on whether we pleased Him.

St.Paul teaches that belief (faith) must express itself through love in order to effectuate justification.

Hebrews 5:9, states that salvation involves obeying not merely believing.

"And being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

Obedience to God and His commands is directly tied to salvation. Christ said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

this is not the place Lula.  Not going there.  You just keep working your way in.  I'll put my trust and faith in Christ and what he's done for me instead. 

I understand the Ethiopian Church has even more books.

If the amount of salvation one receives is proportional to the number of books in one's Bible, I recommend the Ethiopian Church.

ya, makes sense to me Leauki. 

I would not have commented had you not stated:

which demands a response because you are stating an error....a big theological error.

............................

The key word here is "if". However, the point has already been made by both KFC and I that it isn't.  No one is saved by simply owning or reading the BIble no matter how many books it contains. Period.

KFC posts:

Has KFC changed her mind? 

I believe this all started with the legalities PREVENTING creationism from being taught to our children IN PUBLIC SCHOOL and that repeated attempts to change that were acts of insanity. The only possible answer is TRUE.

If this topic interested me anymore, I would not go to a card carrying atheistic progressive liberal like our infamous DoomBringer90 OR a happy go lucky “God has all the answers” person like KFC (no insult intended here) to search out the answers. These views are so diametrically opposed that it equates with asking an Islamic extremist the merits of a Jewish zealot (or vice versa)… What you have seen here is what you get. From the continued bickering back and forth, I do not think anyone’s opinion was in the least bit changed here and everyone leaves with pretty much what he came in with. This might well be considered one of those insanities like in the original question!

My personal opinion such as it is, is that NOTHING should be taught to our children IN PUBLIC SCHOOL unless there is a sound scientific base for it. RRR’s come to mind here not political slants, sexual practices, plumbing preferences and not religion. Teach your religious platitudes in your Churches and your hate in your Mosque. For the time being, your Homes are still inviolate so you still have that venue to poison your own children. BUT NOT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL!

Actually, the views of Islamic extremists are pretty much the same as those of the most fundamentalist Jews. That's why Ahmadinejad hugged and kissed that bearded barbarian so-called "rabbi" who went to the Tehran holocaust denial conference.

And the views of (really) moderate Muslims are pretty much the same as those of most Jews:

http://www.amislam.com/

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/

You see, and KFC can probably confirm this, the term "extremist" doesn't actually mean much. People are either sincere in their faith or they are not. The so-called "extremists" usually believe that their own words are G-d's words. But they are not more religious than the other group.

I'll concede the atheism bit, and I suppose that technically, compared to the rest of this site, I'm hopelessly liberal, but compared to the rest of the world, I'd probably be classified as moderate.

B.T.  I actually agree with you mostly on your last reply.  The only questionable point is when you said "unless there is sound scientific base for it."   That's probably the sticking point for most.  Who decides what is sound and what is questionable when it comes to some of the theories out there.   But I agree that it should NOT be the schools' job to teach religion or sex ed.  That should be left up only for the parents to teach.   They need to get totally out of that business.  Obviously they're not very good at it.  The pregnancy rate has more than skyrocketed since the education system started with their sex ed classes.  And it was proven that the Dare Program (stay off drugs) didn't do much either. 

If the parent's aren't living it the schools are ineffective. 

My point has been if they teach one side then the other should be represented as well.  But if they get out of the business all together than I'd be fine with that.  But I don't see that happening.  I believe there's an agenda going on in our schools and that is to teach a certain way.  I've talked to many teachers over the years who have to keep their mouths shut and try to go around the system the best they can.   That's why the home school movement has gained so much momentum. 

And Doombringer...you are not hopeless.  I'm thinking maybe you're young?  If so, there's much hope for you.  Remember the saying "if you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart and if you're not conservative when you're old you have no brain."    I know how much I've grown over the years.  I've done a 180 on my  many of my views comparing my 20 year old self to my nearly 50 year old self today. 

KFC, you are a prevaricator extraordinaire … and as proof, look at any of my articles where you absolutely refused to allow me any of these courtesies.  You may actually read the whole thing (I doubt it) … but that would be the only thing stated above that does not purvey religious pragmatism in full attack mode.

Nonsense is the MAINSTAY of ALL religious arguments because you cannot do anything else but pick out your bits and pieces and ‘flagged’ words to pounce on … contextual my eye.

“Anytime you take a text out of context you make a pretext” yea, but why is this supposed to JUST apply to realists and not apply to you too? It is an act of civility and in the interests of profitable communications to do these things, but you just cannot.

If you are at all really interested in teaching creationism to our mindless children, it is a very simple procedure. PROVE IT      and stop blowing smoke. It really is that complex simple.

“From a religious standpoint I do believe that Satan is very good at wrapping up packages nice and neat to make it look good.   Anything that will take us away from believing in a creator is the name of the game.”

It is not the name of the game at all. The game is your insistence on foisting your unscientific speculations on the fruit of human kind. Save your propaganda for your own children, and leave mine alone. From a religious standpoint, the DEVIL is your main argument (when all else fails) and is as meaningful as your religions are … from the perspective of knowledge.

“no, I just told you you can teach origins without getting into religion.  You can teach it as an alternative theory like evolution is just a theory.  You can just take the bible as historical literature and teach the creation part in Genesis and not even get into religion at all.”

“You can teach origins without getting into religion” … how? … “And teach the creation part in Genesis”, how unreligious of you.

“You can just take the bible as historical literature” … why should I? Why don’t you just prove your case and stop this nonsense of justifying it with your book … then we can all conform to your ideals and all will be well, something like that?

Well, this is all the nonsense I can take in one sitting, too bad I never got off the first page.

I believe I said merits in there somewhere, not views or whatnot. But even if you accept the premis, that their views are the same, they most certainly do not apply them to each other.

I don't understand any of that.

How would Ahmadinejad and "Rabbi" Weiss apply or not apply the merits or views to each other?