Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

And you do that in order to maintain a false belief. Just like you find another explanation for why Jesus didn't return within a generation after he was killed. The plain text tells you what happened. You don't like what it says, so you invent another reading of it.

I dont see how it matters. People claim that the Bible was made up anyway, so what difference does it make who comments or adds to the plain reading? How could we say that adding commentary and interpretation is a false belief? Are you suggesting that sticking to plain textual interpretation is the only "true" belief? If so, what is it that the plain text teaches us to believe? How does that differ from what GDR thinks we should believe?Edited by Phat, : subtitle

I'm fine with that. It's what the text says. If the text doesn't support your theology, you should change your theology, not mangle the text. But it's completely compatible with the Old Testament and Jesus affirmed the Old Testament. If the text doesn't support your theology, you should change your theology, not mangle the text.

Surely you can figure that out for yourself. Long John Silver was made up but that doesn't give the reader leeway to believe that he escaped by flying saucer. The Bible is the only source of your belief. If it wasn't for the Bible, you would never have heard of Jesus. You wouldn't know where the "communion" in your head was coming from. So throwing out the Bible leaves your belief on pretty shakey ground.

Shaky only in the context of hard evidence...which believers don't have anyway. We believe that the Word was the Word long before it was written down. We also believe that Jesus existed long before the Bible was even written. We dont believe that it would be impossible to hear of or know of Jesus without the book...there have been many global converts who were simply told the story.Granted I can't prove any of this to your rigid critical thinking standards, but believers don't limit their understanding of God or Jesus to the book. My point is that belief is what people individually and collectively decide that it is. There is no standard based on the plain textual reading.Otherwise, the majority of the church would agree with jars warped theology that claims that the god character differed throughout the Bible and was often in need of human correction and that the snake told the truth. Obviously, the vast majority of Christians do not believe these things to be true.

Who says?

That's irrelevant. The only evidence you have of what the Word ever was is what is written down. Also irrelevant. The only evidence you have that He ever existed is what's written down. They were told the story from the book. Unless you have better examples than that, your belief doesn't hold any water. That's the problem. Your belief is made up despite what the book says. That's the problem. Imagine what would happen if you just made up phone numbers, not limiting yourself to what the phone book actually says. It's funny how you have to go through contortions to avoid the "warped" theology that's actually in the Bible. I don't think that's obvious at all.

Anybody with any sense.

So tell me this:
Do you believe that the Book was made-up?

Of course.

If so, what difference does it make if the authors of an ancient book wrote down how they believed the story went? Granted it could be argued that they wrote the story, but my point is that there is no problem interpreting ones personal (or collective church) belief the way that one chooses. You bring up Long John Silver. People read the book for entertainment. In order to provide a proper analogy, if people read Long John Silver to determine the teaching and meaning from two Welsh brothers, it would be respectful to follow John Amrhein's original story to the letter. If, however, one simply believed in the legend of an opportunistic pirate, why not have poetic license to interpret such a character the way one wants? Give him a spaceship if you want to go there.

As I keep telling you, the book is the only concrete source of your belief. If you're just going to make it all up, you might as well call your messenger George. Exactly. When dealing with Long John Silver, I don't deviate from the text. I don't make up my own pirate. Maybe some day John Amrhein will write about the real person that the character Jesus was based on.Until somebody brings up factual information about the real Jesus (if any), you have nothing but the actual story.

OK, I'll give you that argument for a moment. Tell me what good anyone could gain through belief that
1) God is nothing more than a character in a book that is often in need of correction and is "learning on the job"?
2) God kills a man and his wife for not giving everything to the common good.3) The snake told the truth. (and you mention that Satan is a plot device for how our own inner conscience works) If so, what's the point of plain textual belief and how does it differ in your mind from what Faith, GDR, and myself believe and what many of the apologists believe? Particularly GDR who says that Jesus is the word embodied as an example for us...which you seem to agree with except that you toss the envelope.In summation, you believe that it is the plain text message that we learn from and the evidence suggests nothing else...nor does the evidence suggest that there is any real benefit apart from selflessly helping our fellow man.

What good can anybody gain through belief that God is perfect? You could learn that contributing all you can is for your own good - i.e. the common good is YOUR good. *shrug* It says what it says. The snake did tell the truth. You could learn not to make stuff up. As I've said, the text is the basis of your belief. If you're going to throw out the text and make up your own "saviour", you might as well call Him George.

It isn't that hard. If Jesus, as I believe, perfectly embodied the nature of God, then it is clear that there has to be another explanation other than accepting the plain text as written. I have simply come up with possible explanations.