Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

I can't help but wonder, if Faith is such a screaming harpy now, what must she have been like before she was "transformed"?

Fact: You are not a believer.You consider the book to be literature, and the characters to be limited to the book. Why must you insist that I dont understand it, implying that you do? Besides, you cant have it both ways. You cant claim simply that the book must mean a certain thing except for what it means to you.So you guys think believers and apologists make stuff up? OK, fine... let's go with that. You still need to explain why that is dishonest. Do I go telling you how you should interpret Treasure Island? Of course not. And many people can get many different things from the story.

Because they claim that is what the Bible actually says and make other totally false statements about the Bible.How else should such falsehoods be characterized.

Irrelevant. As long as you post nonsense, I will point out that it's nonsense. I make no claims about what the book "means". I only point out what it says. If anybody, whether you or your apologist idols, claim it doesn't mean what it says, the onus is entirely on you to back up that claim. How is it not dishonest to make up "spiritual death"? I have told you, I don't interpret Treasure Island. I read what it says. Feel free to point some out.

Have I ever mentioned that even if it was all just stories told around a campfire there can still be value and meaning?You are yet again just trying the old change the subject and palm the pea conjob.Lots of people can get different things from Treasure Island but if someone claims it is a story about A Horse and his Boy, they are just misrepresenting what is written. If they say John Flint was a banker and ran a boarding room they would be misrepresenting what is written.The Apologists create fantasies to explain that what is written in the Bible stories is not what is actually written in the Bible stories.

I respectfully disagree. Whether you claim that Christianity is misrepresented or not, the fact remains that to many members who call themselves Christians, Christianity(as a Belief) is an interactive relationship between God and Man through Jesus Christ. You frame it solely as a responsible set of actions initiated and achieved solely through the humans involved. Granted your definition appears more logical within the context of observable reality--there is no objective evidence that God interacts with or changes the new convert in any way, but the belief is still widely popular. On a personal level, I believe that it can and does happen.We have talked of Romans 12:2 and what it means. For many Christians, the transformation is communion and is an action of God initiated by the response of the Christian to accept the call(or as you say the charge.) Correct me if I'm wrong, for according to you I often am. On that note, I am not attempting to define what Christianity should be any more than you are. I am simply reporting what many people believe.
The Renewed Mind & How To Have It by John Piper.(Popular Reformed Theologian)As you trot out your insinuations of snake-oil and fantasy lies yet again, keep in mind that if you were to say this about any other religion, (which you oddly don't by the way) it would be construed as disrespectful.We are discussing what mainstream Christianity believes.Critics will attack this belief, but I am showing it to be quite mainstream.

Are we? Why would we do that? Is anybody here unaware of what mainstream Christianity teaches?

Beliefs? Opinions, maybe? Did it ever occur to you that some people do not see the Bible as simply a product of Man and a human invention? Are they not entitled to their belief without being accused of dishonesty?But of course, it lends support to the argument that transformation (Romans 12:2) is entirely our responsibility and that God has nothing to do with it. Which is only one argument, not a conclusion.

I was never aware that it taught that God was a growing character and lied at times. I was never taught that the snake was a truth-telling plot device. That sounds more fringe than mainstream to me.

Well, now you are. It doesn't really matter what it "sounds like" to you. It is what it is. Instead of clinging to myths that you think are "mainstream", why don't you read the bible honestly?

quote:

---

I was never aware that it taught that God was a growing character and lied at times

---

God as a growing character would be Progressive Revelation which is pretty mainstream (GDR has alluded to that more than once).Intentionally misrepresenting the Bible to make it say what you want isn’t.

Yawn.Yes, I have no respect for much of Christianity in the US.That's a fact.But you still just avoid dealing with what I have posted and simply whine.What is written in the Bible is what is written in the Bible.

They are entitled to their beliefs but their beliefs do not change reality. When they misrepresent and deny what is actually written then it is simply reasonable to point out what the Bible actually says and the history of how it was created and the evidence that shows it really is all simply a human construction.

All I am telling you is that the way I was taught is mainstream. And it makes sense to me. You are free to argue that what the Bible says is mainstream, but the way you and jar describe some of the stories, I can tell you it isn't mainstream.

That is sadly true Phat; but what is actually written? Why does the mainstream teach a fantasy that does not reflect what is actually written? Why does the mainstream misrepresent what is actually written in the Bible? Why does the mainstream teach utter nonsense about the content and origin of the Book they claim to revere?