Testing The Christian Apologists

Add By Edit: The reason we don't believe that what we say is made up is that we are defending a belief. Throw Your Evidence Away. It does not help the argument.In addition, the jury has not yet concluded that it is valid. The Jury has both Christians and Secular Humanists on it. And mind you, the book is not the one on trial. It is also not the prosecutor. it is the defense Attorney. Cherry-picking is allowed by the judge.

Why must I accept what Genesis 2-3 says as absolute truth the way that you present it? I have every right to interpret the book the way that I feel it should be interpreted. You can't hold my feet to the fire that you are creating by attempting to explain what a particular passage means.

Belief, In General, is on trial. And you too are a defendant. You cant simply knock down the whole concept of belief and proclaim evidence alone as the gold standard for humanity. How can we trust evidence that we ourselves create?

I was born again. May it please the court to tell the prosecutor to sit down? He is complicating the proceedings. Or do you consider yourself the judge, too? I can watch you make a mockery of the judicial system. You need to learn humility. That's why God even sits where he sits. You are not Jesus. And the Judge sits over there. He is not some character in a book. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I am being honest. God is not made up. Unless the prosecution has evidence to the contrary, I suggest they need a recess. With the court's permission, of course.

Not fully, but I can learn. As you know, I consider this whole argument of using evidence only useful once we can agree on what is being presented. I am under no illusion that Biblical Christianity (the way most of us think) can be proven. My contention is with the (in my opinion) warped attempt to use the book to prove a counter theology. You disguise it as Christianity, but it is not.Can I prove it? No. Does the book contain evidence to support ringos case? Yes and No. The book can be used to make any argument.

I have no problem with that. Like I told jar, belief can not be proven. My contention is ith both of your assertions that apologetics is not honest. By what standard is honesty judged? In what context? And in what venue?

I will admit that I am arrogant about God. I lift Him up. I disagree with atheism. But I respect the right of atheists to be atheists and secular humanists to be secular. As I have shown (but which you likely cannot listen to) I am listening to several secular humanists who don't believe.My point of contention with you and jar is that you ruin the story by making the snake out to be a hero and God out to be flawed. That isn't Christianity, but it does make for an interesting discussion.

God is not made up in my belief, though. He is very real to me. They have not disproved people's sacred beliefs yet. They have, however, exposed Christian nationalism as a farce.

Which story? The story i read has God at the very beginning and has Jesus there too. What story are you referring to? The human story?

I see your argument. One thing that you claim, and yet that I would challenge, is why these "mutually exclusive" gods may not still be referring to the same One?As I have mentioned before, IF God exists, (which I believe He does) and IF the God who exists is the one mentioned by Jesus as "His Father". this God is quite capable of morphing into the consciousness of truth-seekers throughout known reality. Why must you always break down the Bible according to your pet theory (based on evidence, of course) that people are simply storytellers relegating tales around a campfire on a cold, late night? This night could be 5000 years ago, among illiterate goat herders. This late-night could be among a group of Kurds, abandoned by what they thought was their Christian Ally. Each group may call God by a different name. Each God may have characteristics inherent within the cultural background of that group. Yet there is no reason to act like a detached and dispassionate sociologist and analyze the God characters as if they were simply mentioned in a series of books. My point is that GOD if GOD exists, wants to relate to humans. You would rightly ask how I could make such an assertion without resorting to what Phat wants the book to say and what the apologists have seized and continue to sell. I can respect your question. I indeed do believe that the God in my head (and hopefully heart) is the real one. (One) Bart Campolo and his Father had a public discussion on how they reconcile being an evangelical Father and an Atheist Son without fighting or becoming distant.

Oh, right. I was challenging you on the characters mentioned. You claim that the apologists make up explanations of the book. All I am saying is that most book critics whom I have read don't see the snake and the God character quite as you see them. You can claim that the book defends itself and that all of the apologists somehow fail to see what to you is so obvious. I am simply agreeing with those who share a love of the stories and who claim to have an overall insight into the Author(or authors, editors, and redactors) behind the stories. None of us know what was going through the mind of the first goat herder to tell a story. What we do know is that the stories were accepted by humanity and retold many times throughout the years. [qs=ringo]The part about Jesus being there at the beginning is made-up apologetics.[/s] Not according to the gospel of John. It clearly says that God was in the beginning and the Word was with God and was God. He was with God in the beginning. Perhaps you could argue that this clearly does not mean Jesus, but who then would it mean? You? I? The author? You seem to have a problem with anything that is believed as if it were made up. Do you get answers from the ducks? Did you make up your own answers? Is that not a belief? The Ducks simply help calm your mind to receive the answers. Snakes are not usually calming influences which is why I find your conclusion that this snake told the truth puzzling unless you are simply defending what is plainly written. In which case I would ask you why you don't relate to the god character and relate more to the snake of whom it was told Now, to be fair, we can attempt to find an answer why this God character would be mad at the snake which allegedly told the truth. We could then tie the snake's purpose in with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and claim that the snake was simply God's messenger to deliver the knowledge of good and evil to humanity. In that case, perhaps the analogy does speak the truth. But to say that the God character lied is quibbling with semantics. the apologists have a good explanation that it was spiritual death. This is also supportable by the fact that the God character cursed the snake for what it said. (or did). this leads to the question of what type of plot device the snake represented, which type of plot device this God character represents, and whether or not the authors themselves were early humanist apologists attempting to explain a large, unknown, and scary world. I submit that everyone searches for a God character to be real. I would also submit that we don't simply create Gods to serve us, do we? If so, we really did eat that fruit and we humans really do have the audacity to think we ourselves are our own God.

There is no birth problem.

Pathetic. How can you call yourself a believer? You laugh at the ones who claim to have witnessed the supernatural only because your mind has never been there.You will see, however.I can learn nothing more from any of you. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

I think I've done pretty well. Most Christians wouldn't listen to either atheist podcasts or secular humanist podcasts as I have done.