Testing The Christian Apologists

Phat writes:Granted you and ringo quote what is written, but your story and conclusion differs from the vast majority of believers. Either I am to believe that most Christians simply accept the story and do not care to hear alternate versions, which is true in my case, or that the majority of Christians are dishonest and believing a fantasy, which I do not think to be the case.

Phat writes:We believe what we want to be true.

Phat writes:Oh, and jar: You claim that I make up the God whom I want. But it seems that you do also. You can't accept the idea of substitutionary atonement because you prefer personal responsibility and the honor system.

Phat writes:And specifically, why should I simply accept what the book supposedly says according to you guys?

Phat writes:Again, it not what is written. Its how it is interpreted.

Phat writes:You say you are a believer. Why is it then that every other believer I have ever run across can tell me without hesitation what Jesus means to them---fondly, reverently, and acting as if they are talking of a literal family friend....whereas I ask you the same question and you go "Huh?

Phat writes:The Heavenly Father loves little boys who mind their manners, tow the line on the honor system, and don't check their brains at the door as the rest of these spoiled entitled fantasy-driven Americans do.

Phat writes: But if its simply a character in a book, how is that any different than listening to yourself?

Phat writes: Because you refuse to accept any of the bumper stickers (as you put it) explanations. Nobody can tell you anything you will accept or understand, apparently. You have a preconceived bias against American Christianity anyway.
You have already made up your mind as to what it means. Scripture tells us that no man can come to know God unless the Spirit draws them. That's one reason why no human has ever been able to offer you an explanation of what stuff means that many people accept.

Phat writes:A common pattern that I have observed from the Christians I associate with and believe the integrity of is that they studied and searched the scriptures a lot, studied other beliefs, and yet had one basic event in common:
They never threw any of it away
They felt a tug at their heart and soul...(which to you would be a red flag rather than an epiphany) and they finally surrendered to what they honestly felt to be a living Christ. A major change subsequently happened to them and all doubt was vanquished.You never understood the process (which may actually mean you were using full critical thinking skills) and never understood what it was that "tugged at your heart and soul" and what it meant for GOD to be alive, and what it meant that the character was not limited to the book. Thus you never allowed yourself to surrender and thus never felt any sort of epiphany.You seem to value sacred studies more than simply Jesus as the final answer. I respect though disagree with this only in that I believe Jesus is the final answer...its always good to study how the other folk believe.Add by edit: Perhaps what I describe as surrender is to you the sizzle without the steak. You likely believe that Christianity is a lifelong commitment to doing rather than a one time surrender. I appreciate your perspective, but I firmly believe in the initial surrender which is most definitely felt as a major change.
You and ringo and others may argue that this change is an illusion. An easy solution. A release from responsibility rather than a commitment. But I don't think it has to be that way. And I don't think people can truly commune with GOD, God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit without it. But to those who are content with critically valuing all religions as equally valid and plausible, (at the same time in the same cultural space) relativism supersedes absolute truth.

Faith writes:The amazing certainty with which you and others assert such emptyheaded irrational biases that have no evidence for them whatever is certainly impressive coming from someone who thinks he believes in scientific rational thought.

Phat writes:And I see no evidence that your supposed plain reading of the Bible is in any way emulated by very many people. The ones whom do stick to it have no belief or bias anyway. I am unconvinced that the meaning of the text is as you suggest.

Faith writes:And when it is true, as the Bible is, then apologists have their work cut out for them as their job is to show its consistency and draw out all the implications of a divine work.

Phat writes:It simply does not say what my inner unction tells me it *should* say.

Faith writes:Ugh. It sets my teeth on edge to see such blasphemous statements that reduce God to the human level. No that is NOT how the Bible "depicts" God at all, you are reading your own views into those words. Ugh.