Part 20 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Uh oh... Heaven just got reduced to a personalized "version of heaven" and has fallen into the hands of a new management. On one hand this new management says that there are no "prerequisites", then in the next breath, the new management requires that all who come in cannot be 'evil'. That sounds a bit contradictory, but hey,,, it is his 'version of heaven'.

 

it's that long because they rarely answer tough questions. they invoke scripture, and waffle in slippery terms, but RARELY give frank answers - unless you ask a question like "why does god love me?", then you'll hear plenty

meanwhile, I submit you'll get naught but slippery obfuscation in response to your own question. they don't seem able to be honest enough to provide a simple "I have no idea". pretty embarrassing to admit that, I guess, when you claim to know so much about the business. this is one of the Great Fails of Christianity. you have to appear to know precisely how it all works, and why, and how, but in fact you know absolutely nothing. quite the bind, and the fruit of the bind is a 20 part series of unanswered questions.

 

I leaves the dead and decaying body.

 

Seems my last post in this thread (the one just before this one) proves your claim to be less than accurate.... far less.

 

what sane human would choose the pit of snakes, when that is the ONLY other choice. when one of the choices is no choice at all, then there is no free will involved.

 

It wasn't made up.

 

Sure it was... I never happened.. Just like 93 million Jewish babies were not wrapped in Torah scrolls and burned by the Romans in the hilltop village of Betar.

You can count on gross exaggeration in all the old stories..

 

this ability to pretend that everyone else's claims are somehow not in the same league as yours is quite remarkable. even more remarkable that you look to the minutiae of your myths to support this pretence, as though minor differences in story arcs are the deal breaker.

that's kinda like saying your sci fi novel (set in the future) is the only one which will be proven true because your lead character eats spaghetti on Tuesdays, and once swam nude in a public fountain after replicating too much wine.

 

If you "never happened", then who is publishing postings in your name? If you never happened why am I even responding to you?

 

You don' know much about the Bible or Herod, do you?

There was a total lunar eclipse before Passover in 1 B.C.

That's when Herod died... in January.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimm...hen-herod-the-great-really-died#ixzz39NSyzlxc

 

What on Earth does that historical fact have to do with the questions that you responded to?

 

And we can count on gross exaggeration in your replies. So far you've
put up nothing to support your case. Just gross exaggeration.

 

Herod didn't have the babies slaughtered.. He died.. and he could NEVER have maintained order if he had done so and Rome would have sacked him as governor.

 

That still has nothing to do with "I never happened.", which is what you stated.

 

Oh look, another baseless claim. I believe in not myths or pretense. You
on the other hand have shown yourself to be quite adept in creating stories
that you can't support.

I have an idea. How about you start acting like an adult and put something
worth reading in your posts, like maybe a little bit of truth or fact.

 

Of course they do. Get a synopsis.

Anybody who only ever read the Gospel of Mark will tell you that Jesus was quite lax about Mosaic law (Mark 7:1-20). Anybody who only ever read the Gospel of Matthew will tell you that Jesus told his followers they must not ignore the least of its commands (Matthew 5:17-20). I’m not saying either view of Jesus is wrong – they just give you different perspectives.

Sorry, but this is at best an oversimplification, which is equally daft as the statement, that archaeology proves that the Bible is non-factual, would be. The truth is in between:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/11/18/4350632-bible-gets-a-reality-check

[video=youtube;qalTJzk4kO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalTJzk4kO0[/video]

No, it is not as one and IMHO it speaks of great disrespect for the Biblical Canon to pretend it is. There’s a reason the canon contains four different gospels rather than the Diatessaron or any other early gospel harmony.

What???
Luther’s “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t have ‘Biblical evidence’ either. Why? Because it addresses a 16th century problem that was not the Biblical authors’ concern, just as the issue that I raised is a 21th century problem that was not the Biblical authors’ concern.

As for “sola scriptura”: yes, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy as held by 21th century evangelical fundamentalists is refuted by the Bible itself. Very clearly the Bible is not inerrant when it comes to historical facts, nor is it concerned about our 21th century notion of what constitutes a historical fact and of how important they are; otherwise the list of open discrepancies wouldn’t be so long. (If Josef wasn’t Jesus’ biological father, why give Jesus’ lineage via Josef? The Stone was either still in front of the grave when the women arrived or already gone, Judas either hanged himself or split his guts open … . )
So, being a rather traditional Protestant, who cherishes the principle of “Sola Scriptura”, I can’t hold your doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

And I still have hope that you may drop your weak attempts at deflection and actually address the concern I uttered: Why put up an unnecessary stumbling block to faith in Jesus Christ by demanding one sticks to a demonstrably false doctrine? Why idolize the Bible as the literal “Word of God” when the Bible itself tells us that the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:14) and that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6)?

 

No, they don't. I've spent much time refuted the so called contradictions
and I doubt you can produce one I haven't seen and refuted. Please
give it a try.

Which don't contradict, and is your accusation.

As far as your childish "anybody who only ever read" remark it's lucky for
you I've not only read them but I've translated much of it from the Greek.
There are no contradictions whatsoever.

As far as four Gospels go, and you just admitted it, they don't contradict
each other.

 

Awesome response. Thank you for that splendid notation.

 

what is that? a long pout of indignation?

and what is 'creating stories you can't support'? if someone makes an observation about the Christian habit of saying "because my god ate spaghetti on Tuesdays, he's better than your god", or whatever equally nebulous differentiator you use, they're not creating a story, they're making an observation. in this case, quite a sound one. you DO rely, entirely, on nebulous differentiation to claim sole godhead.

 

No, just facts.

You've provided only myths you've concocted on your own with nothing
to support your baseless claims. Would you provide evidence that knowing
that God is real is merely nebulous and observation?

 

okay, it appears you either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

what are these myths and baseless claims? I've asked you a couple of times but no response.

and what does "would you provide evidence that knowing that god is real is merely nebulous and observation' mean? it's barely even English, I'm sorry to say. if you're asking for evidence that Christians claim supremacy (over all other gods) based purely on some detail of the legend, then ask yourself why you believe your god trumps all the others? is it because of some particular detail of the story? or is it because he's a sparkly magician who regularly makes appearances on earth and regrows limbs, while the other gods stay silent?

 

Calling the Bible a myth. In fact calling anything in religion a myth. I
thought you'd be aware of what I meant.

Christianity doens't claim supremacy. There may be Christians who
do.

You're not describing God. Perhaps it's someone else. Here is yet
another example of myths you create to fit your whim.

 

I'm given you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you have a little trouble following the train of thought. I don't think you're doing this to deflect hard questions ... like some of your brethren do.

Myths are old stories and legends which may or may not be true (most often not, but that doesn't make them worthless - they have use as parable and are important oral history devices). We must necessarily lump them all together, unless there is 'hard' history to support the content. While there are references to real places and people in your bible, that is merely the setting for the story. The story itself makes supernatural claims, so is easily relegated to myth status. You shouldn't be annoyed by this, even old stories without supernatural claims can be referred to as myths.

I stand corrected in your regard - I made the mistake of thinking most Christians dismiss other gods. It appears you consider them all equal?

How did I 'not describe god'? could you specify what attributes I claimed for your god which were incorrect? and could you give me the correct detailed description of your god, please.

 

I'm having no problem whatsoever and you haven't provided any hard question.

My brethren? Who are you talking about? Seriously.

The spirit of your posts have been intentionally rude and antagonistic.

Correct, and these cases they are they per what you said above.

Not at all. But you're mistaking that as claiming a status of being rude and
self righteous. The spirit of your previous post was just that. At any rate,
God say's He's the only God.

You're kidding right? At any rate, your ridiculous "a sparkly magician who
regularly makes appearances" statement.
on earth and regrows limbs

 

We'll deal with that once we get to 1 million years for now the fact is apes are not more intelligent that humans. Every creatures have a degree of intelligence ants for example very tiny and yet they possess a certain intelligence that is higher than the big great apes and yet their intelligence is no where near human intelligence.