asaris

Let's see about that, shall we?

Heaven is often used ambiguously in scripture; sometimes, it refers to the spiritual realm where God resides. Sometimes, it refers to the paradise to which the saved go after the resurrection of the body (or after death). So, the first way around this contradiction is simply that the word 'heaven' is used in two different ways. The second is simply to point out that Jesus or John is making a rhetorical point about who has authority to talk about heaven, not making the historical claim that Jesus is the only person who has gone into heaven.

Ask not what the words say, but what they mean. The first statement is making the point that we ought to be good examples to our fellow men and women. The second is making the point that we ought not be ostentatious in our good deed doing -- "Don't do your acts of righteousness in order to be seen doing them by men." I fail to see any contradiction between the two.

You missed the part in Exodus (or perhaps Deuteronomy) where God tells Moses that Moses can't see his face, because no one can see God and live. But again, 'face to face' is not being used literally here. How could it be? God is a spirit, and doesn't have a face. Jacob is talking about his wrestling with God, and the Exodus passage is meant merely to underscore the intimacy involved in the conversations between God and Moses. The passage in John is meant to emphasize Christ as the only route to God.

What John says is perfectly true, isn't it? If I tell you I'm a trustworthy person, you have no reason to believe me (and so my testimony is not valid). However, if I also happen to be a trustworthy person, my statement is true (and so my testimony is valid).

Well, I'm not sure that that's exactly what I've done. But I certainly think the proscriptions against homosexuality are also often taken out of context. I might also note, in case anyone wants to make this objection, that fundamentalists do not take the Bible literally, in the sense that everything in the Bible is a literal statement of fact. No one thinks that Jesus is literally a rock.

As far as the claims of the self-identified fundamentalists here, I think the story of Jonah is up for grabs. It's true that Jesus refers to it as if it were true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what he meant. IIRC, he didn't refer to it in any way differently than if I were to say "Just like Gandalf showed courage before the balrog, so you too must stand up before evil." That statement doesn't entail that I think there was a historical Gandalf, only that I think it's a good example of the point I'm trying to make.

As far as the young earth claims and the 'dry' claims, I don't have a problem with those positions as such, even though I think they're both wrong. I have a problem with the extension of those positions, though. Someone might reasonably think I'm wrong in drinking alcohol; but that's different from condemning me for it. Similarly, and to a greater extent, someone might think I'm mistaken for believing in an old earth, but to claim that makes me less of a Christian is simple arrogance.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche