For me, that confusion of languages keeps me sceptical.
Funny that both of these things--the age of the earth and the time it took for the confusion of languages--are time-related. And are historical in nature.
Correction of language confusion usually would take quite some time, too, like it currently does when a new tribal group is found (like in the Amazon, perhaps). Yet on Pentecost, that time was considerably shortened, and it was not the disciples of Jesus that witnessed it, but the unbelievers that witnessed it. Could God do one and not the other? Is it possible that Adam could have named the animals on the first day he lived? If so, then he was created with a language already learned, or God taught him real quick.
Anything historical is questionable but there is certainly earnestness to the story of Jesus life and crucifixion. And really, changing water into wine isn't any different, in principle, to a talking donkey.
Except the water/wine miracle is another time-related event. And it was witnessed by a number of people, whereas Balaam's conversation was only witnessed by two of his servants. Perhaps they brought the story to Israel at some point.
I had considered myself a believer in the past - but I was just guessing in hope. There is no point in me doing the same again.
I really don't understand faith. I can appreciate the sincerity of what Jesus is said to have done - but can't see how one goes beyond that.
Do you think you would feel different seeing him perform his miracles? And what about the apostles after his death? Would you want to hear wisdom from Him that has returned from the dead?
Yet I remain astonished that Christians allow...permit other Christians to promote the idea that Jesus did not die for all.
I explained this to Evil.eye in a previous post, but I know it's hard to keep track of all the blather. If Jesus' death being for you means that you are saved, but the bible clearly indicates that not all are saved, what can we say, but that Jesus' death was NOT for all?
Personally, I think He did die for all, but only some take advantage of it.
The end result is the same--those that do not believe are not benefited by His death, whatever the reason. What I don't understand is why Christians feel the need to argue about it so much. Apparently we are all still not fully sanctified and completed in the good work He has promised to do in us.
But here's an interesting question. What would you say if some Christians did NOT allow others to promote that idea, and they had the power to enforce it? Would you not condemn those Christians? Like I would the Inquisition? If you agree, then you condemn Christians for allowing a differing opinion, and you condemn Christians for not allowing a differing opinion.
Are you, perhaps, more harsh to your former brothers and sisters than the situation calls for? And why is that? Is it perhaps that you are still pulled toward the cross, but you are trying to reject it?
Let's try one more "what-if". What would you say to the church you used to belong to, if they said you would have to die when you walked away from the faith, because as Christians, we can't let anyone believe something different? I assume they didn't do that, because you're still alive.
Have we not, then, grown as the church universal, where we don't kill the heretics and apostates anymore? Maybe Jesus' prayer for unity in His church is indeed being fulfilled, but not as immediately as we might like to see. And isn't that just one more time-oriented miracle?
