Testing The Christian Apologists

That's pretty much how I would define a mind-control cult.

It would if he was real. *shrug* I have no problem with the idea of knowing God. I could know God as easily as I could know Long John Silver or James Bond. None of them would be easy to relate to but I know plenty of real people who aren't easy to relate to.Edited by ringo, : SpellIng.

We used to have a student pastor who was one of the best human beings I have ever met. Two anecdotes about him:1. On a work day at the church, he accidentally hit his thumb with a hammer. Instead of yelling @#$% like most of us would do, he yelled out, "Praise the Lord!"2. In a sermon, he was getting worked up and he said, "There are people out there who are going to Hell and most of you don't give a damn!" He paused for a few seconds and then added, "And most of you are more upset that I said 'damn' than you are about those people going to Hell."It's no surprise that you don't give a damn about your fellow humans. Thats where your perverted beliefs tend to lead.Edited by ringo, : Spulling.

The road to Hell is paved with motivation.

It's a continuum. And you're backsliding into conservatism.

Well, the aphorism doesn't add a lot of qualifications to nullify its meaning.

Who are you trying to kid? There won't be any conservatives there. That promise is completely worthless.

Still waiting for you to defend the apologist fantasies.

double postEdited by ringo, : No reason given.

The Christianity that you were taught is not from the Bible, as you have been shown oh so many times.

What you call the "TRUE" meaning of the Bible is a lie. It is clear what the Bible actually says. The context of Genesis is not Romans.

No more than Treasure Island is the context of The Grapes of Wrath. If you claim it is, you have to back up that claim. I put the text ahead of your claims. I make no claims except what the text actually says.And we all know that your claims about two thousand years of lockstep agreement by all scholars is nonsense.Edited by ringo, : SpellIng.

What has that got to do with reading what the book says? The text does say what it says. I don't need to "prove" that. It's a tautology. So back up that accusation. All you've done is run away. If you're going to call me a liar, show us how I'm lying. It isn't "the book I use". It's the book you use. Then why don't you just throw the book away? Why do you pay any attention to apologists who try to reconcile the book with the character in your head? I agree that the Christianity dilutes the secular humanism, so let's get rid of the Christianity entirely.

It isn't though. That's why there are so many denominations. Those who "have the Holy Spirit" display the fruits of the Spirit:

quote:

---

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

---

not hate, anger, hammering the Caps Lock key, etc.(By the way, "longsuffering" means patience, not complaining long and loud about how much one is suffering.)

It always suits me. But we know all to well that use use scripture when it suits you and throw it away when it doesn't suit you. Quoting the text isn't "explaining anything away". Using out-of-context quotes - like you and Faith do - to change what the text says is explaining it away.