The Tension of Faith

If this is supposed to be an answer to my post, I'm not seeing it.

So given your deflection, I conclude I am right, You have no reason for posting absolute crap.

I reviewed the context of my comment. There is a considerable amount of story in Genesis that I did not mention. None of it appears to be essential to my comment to Tangle that his remarks did not match the story.

Congratulations! How very like Faith. And you feel under no obligation to say why. Interesting.

This exchange between you and NoNukes began with your Message 37 where you said: NoNukes responded in Message 38: What seems to have put the bee in NoNukes' bonnet was when you replied like this in Message 39: I think when NoNukes said that you might have a case ("you can still make a logical conundrum out of all this") that he thought you should tighten up your arguments and logic, for example, be more accurate about where those Christian concepts of hell and damnation come from, something more like a legal brief, but I'm not sure why he feels this way. Just the nonsense and illogic you listed is sufficient to show that Christianity is a work of imagination. To ask you for more makes as much sense as asking someone to tighten up their arguments against the existence of leprechauns. One could do it, but it's not like it's necessary.Christianity is religion, not history or science. Religions do what they do, and portions of many of them make a kind of internal sense, including Christianity, but they don't make sense in the real world, and fact and reality is all that is required to make this point.So while I agree with NoNukes that you don't have a complete or fully accurate argument in a legalistic sense, one seems unnecessary because you are correct on the essential points and what you've said so far seems more than sufficient. Instead of objecting to what you say on procedural grounds I'd like to see him address your actual arguments.--Percy

Yes, he would like to draw me into biblical literary criticism which I'm simply not interesred in; it's more important that those who believe in these things actually justify what they believe and the justification is not in the bible stories, it's in the logic of their belief in them. eg how can you believe in a loving god that condems 90% of all humanity to everlasting torture for something a distant parent allegedly did?The problem here is that I'm responding to Faith's beliefs which are, apparently, very different to Nuke's. Christians believe very different things based on the same stories. I can't argue with him based on what Faith believes. His beef is not with me playing back Faith's beliefs, it's with Faith.If he'd like to display his belief based on this damnable book, I'll happily have a pop at that, but until he does, it's moot.

Lets take this over to Encouragement From A Believers Perspective.

quote:

---

I reviewed the context of my comment. There is a considerable amount of story in Genesis that I did not mention

---

And I reviewed your comment and it was misleading without that point.I further note that you did not address my other point which was relevant to your discussion with Tangle.

The only way to make any sense out of beliefs, scriptures, or doctrines is to have someone explain them the way that the individual believes and why.What frustrates me about Faith is that she ignores responding to any of her critics---even to me--who is not as critical as some...I only want her to be honest and admit that her logic is based on her belief. Faith, if you hope to reach any of the people here at EvC you are simply going to have to answer their questions and quit dodging them. Quoting scripture won't work in the absence of honest participation.When I first came to EvC, I was frustrated that my beliefs were challenged and even mocked. i now realize that I needed that baptism of fire and am glad that I have responded and continue to respond to many who have a different worldview from myself.As far as salvation and Jesus goes, I also encourage people to accept the hypothetical and let reality sort itself out. Please don't judge Jesus based on the flawed personalities of myself or faith. Were it I, I also wouldn't judge Him based on the behavior of the God in OT stories.

No it doesn't.

well, technically they had to eat from the tree of life first. One could say that jesus (as the vine) represents that tree. People chose knowledge (independence) and self awareness over communion, however. And we(many of we) continue to do the same today.

I made my comment because almost nothing about Tangle's criticism was actually accurate. A bad argument is a bad argument.I do acknowledge that many Christian beliefs can be questioned in a rational manner, however just making crap up is not rational. I believe I can point that out without having a responsibility to respond to arguments no one has even made. Maybe I will do that if he actually makes an argument. I have done so in the past. But I am not going to make up arguments for him and then respond to that.

Faith, great OP! I agree with you completely on this topic. When a doctor gives a terminal diagnosis to a patient, it's not because he WANTS them to die, but because they need to know the truth. What the doctor WANTS is irrelevant. For some reason, most atheists and agnostics can't see that our position is analogous to the doctor's.

And yet you continue to butt into a discussion I'm having with Faith calling it 'a bad argument', 'crap' and not even an argument, without actually saying why; in fact refusing to say why.Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Like I say, interesting, very interesting. I think a nerve has been touched.

Thanks very much, KB, what a relief that there is at least one person here who sees it the way I do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.