Summations Only

Well what a useless endeavor that would be. You get the bible quoted to you to disprove what you say and you don't accept it.
You're not debatable.

Oooo that was a really cheap shot. The reason you won't quote the Koran is that it says absolutely nothing along the lines you think it does.ABE: Doubletake: you want me to answer the idyotik stuff jar posts, is that what you are talking about? There is nothing to say, he mangles the Bible and it would take months to unmangle the mess and he's not worth it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don't answer anybody is the problem. You preach. I'll drink Koolaid and join a cult if I need that.
Jar is one of the sharpest guys going. Frankly, I don't believe we would get anything different if you did respond to him, but that would be a start of at least a debate instead of literal, bible thumper, preaching session.

Say what? Of course Paul invented a religion. Granted it continued to evolve after Paul's death but Christianity most certainly is a Paulian creation.And if you want to preach effectively you really need to have a subject that does not simply turn peoples stomachs.When you post stuff like "Not accepted by heretics and others but there is a canon accepted by Protestants.' as you did in Message 235 or "The Christian answer to your question is that God elects those He chooses to save, from every culture in the world. I consider myself one of those extremely fortunate people.' as you did in Message 330 or "Thinking biblically means taking the Bible as the entire framework of your thinking, believing what it says and judging all its parts by all its other parts." as you posted in Message 1229 or 'Doesn't "trump" reality, IS reality, shows us what reality IS. And it's not just a book, or a particular book, it's sixty six books by forty some odd authors inspired by God, and when you know it's God's own communication to us then you know that it is a revelation of reality itself.' as you posted in Message 1255 or "The original distinction which defined the animals to be taken into the ark I've always understood to be in relation to needing more clean animals for sacrifice, which Noah performed as soon as the ark landed. I believe I was very clear about that, so that when I mentioned that Leviticus defined the difference I was referring to animals for sacrifice. " as you posted in Message 1437 or "I despise this place. I've GOT to get out of here. I wish I could CENSOR EvC off the internet so I'd never have to see it again. Just go *poof* the lot of you." as you posted in Message 1588 and the fact that even though you claim there are Old Testament prophecies that refer to Jesus you refuse to discuss them even after being referred to a thread devoted to just that topic can you expect or even hope that anyone takes you seriously?Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

I would never tell a man that. Wives are a lot of things, but one thing they are not is fungible.

TL/DR (Too Long/Didn't Read): The Bible is the word of men and not the word of God simply because there is nothing different about any Bible-believer that cannot be achieved through other non-God-related methods. There was no complaint. I personally like Christians.
I was simply explaining how the Bible doesn't affect anyone in any manner that cannot be achieved by other non-Godly methods.There's simply nothing special about it in the grand scheme of things.
There's specialness to certain individuals... like I'm sure you think it's rather special.
But that's still nothing different from a placebo effect. There's people who think getting dressed up in animal costumes (Furries) is special, too. And they get out of that what you get from the Bible. That's why there's nothing special about it in the grand scheme of things.If it truly was the Word of God... it would not be difficult to see the difference it could make.
However, since there is absolutely no difference that it makes (in comparison to other words/works of men) we can confidently conclude that the Bible is nothing more than the words of men.

Sin and hell are concepts FROM The Bible. So essentially The Bible creates a problem then pushes itself as the only solution to this problem.Edited by Asgara, : edited subtitle

No, Asgara, Hell is not at all unique to the Bible. That's one thing that surprised me when I began my trek into religions years ago. Every religion, or every culture, has some concept of Hell, an afterlife where the wicked are punished. There are many different versions, most of them temporary. Buddhism and Hinduism have many Hells. I put up a Chinese Buddhist Hell Painting on one of my blogs a few years ago but can't find it. But here's one: And here's a whole page of them The word "Hell" is simply the English word for what all cultures recognized. Hades is obviously one version, and Tartarus, and I'm sure other terms will come to mind.It's a place for bad people after death. Again the word "sin" is an English word but the concept is certainly universal.ABE: Found the other one and loaded it to Photobucket so it will show up here: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, one thing that can't be achieved is belief in the Bible and devotion to Christ and the experience of being born again. Why? What you aren't taking into account is that God doesn't let everyone understand it. As the Bible says, He CHOOSES people, HE decides who will understand and who won't, who will be saved and who won't. We nevertheless tell everybody about it hoping you'll WANT to understand and be saved and want to do all you can to further that desire, because that would be reason to hope you are chosen. How you judge the Bible from a position of unbelief really doesn't tell you anything at all. I wouldn't be so confident if I were you. In some respects I get your point, Christians should act different and we often don't but on the other hand we ARE different from what we were before, I know I am, but you have no way of knowing that, and the ways we are different are interior more than exterior. Anyway, you shouldn't put such trust in external things, Stile.

If that was true then that god is simply evil and deserves nothing but pity, condemnation, disgust, fear and opposition.But that still has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Bible is just the words of man or the inerrant word of even so evil a god as the one you try to market.

When does this train of thought become hyper-Calvinism? "all you can do to further that desire". That would be nothing, right?My wanting to or even taking action, according to you, is of absolutely no consequence. No action on my own part can aid me in achieving salvation, right? Wouldn't I be practically a Jehovah's Witness if I thought otherwise?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The idea that God chooses is not even particularly Calvinist, let alone hyperCalvinist, it's simply Biblical. It's a major Biblical theme. God chose Abraham, chose Israel ("chosen people") and chose individual Christians ("the elect") and of course chose individuals to gift in particular ways for the good of the Church. Now THAT is hyperCalivinism. If you actually WANT to be saved you are probably one of God's chosen because all such inclinations are given by God and all that tend toward salvation are a good sign that you are saved or will be saved if you continue to pursue that desire. Nobody can say for sure, and I suppose some such feelings are shallow and ephemeral, that's why I add the condition that you continue to pursue the desire. If you do that then I'd say God is leading you to salvation.

Careful, Faith. You did not pay close attention to the point I called you out on.Here is what you said."want to do all you can to further that desire".Neither my desire, nor my actions mean anything with regard to my salvation. God chooses and in fact has already chosen based on criteria that don't involve any choices I've made or the state of my soul.Note that I am not suggesting that you should not try to help me understand. What I am saying is that you are encouraging me to feel a way that you yourself know to be false and that you believe is laden with hubris. My desire is meaningless.Beyond that, I reject your definition of hyper Calvinism anyway. I'm simply applying exactly what Calvin himself says. Namely that every human is too wretched to make even the slightest movement towards salvation. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And what would happen to whomever was chosen? Very bad things! As Tevye asks God (paraphrased from 40-year-old memory), "Just once, couldn't you choose someone else?"But for hyper-Calvinism, why look any further that the Ranters? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranter) It is predestined whether you are saved or not. If you are not predestined to be saved, then there is nothing you can do to be saved, and if you are predestined to be saved, then there is nothing you can do to be unsaved. Nothing you say or do or believe will make any difference. So why worry? Why even make any kind of effort? Basically, eat, drink, screw indiscriminately, and be merry because nothing we do makes any difference whatsoever.By their fruits you will know them. The Matthew 7:20 Test.

So which is it?

1. Christianity is the one true religion because it includes stories shared by other cultures and religions, such as about hell; or
   ​
2. Christianity is the one true religion because it includes unique stories shared by no other cultures or religions, such as about losing ten tribes.

--Percy