Testing The Christian Apologists

Well there is a common theme, it all works together in amazing ways to build one complete continuous revelation. Most of the errors are easily enough reconciled but a few human errors doesn't interfere with the overall divine nature of the work anyway.

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.

Yes but the LORD penetrates the entire universe and surrounds every one of us and is NOT a human being and is NOT on the level of a human being and is NOT in proportion with a human being, and that is how these passages get scarily misread. They are written to explain some of God's actions but you are misreading them as if God was just like us. God's wrath and vengeance are aimed against human actions that are so contrary to the nature of God, so attached to false gods of all sorts, that He MUST act AGAINST us. Trivializing this is scary. But I guess nothing I say is going to make any kind of difference. People are going to go on talking about God as if he's a disagreeable troll instead of the power that runs everything and cannot do anything that is not righteous, and eventually we human "gods" who dare to judge our Maker are going to be destroyed by Him because that is the nature of spiritual reality.

Well, that was predictable. I guess there is nothing I can say that won't be made into that sort of misreading. God has to act righteously, He always has to do the most righteous thing. That can include wrath against malefactors and lawbreakers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are blind in one eye, Phat? I'm so sorry to hear that. That operation didn't work? What happened?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Stop blaming our loving God. We are fallen, we are all living in a soup of sin. It gets all of us in different ways. It's us, not God. God will get us through it too.

Oh you're going to play that disingenuous game eh?Actually Adam is given the responsibility for the Fall more than Eve because the man is given the responsibility by God. In any case we all inherit their original sin and add plenty of our own to it so we're all guilty, including Phat.And yes God loves us. Things could in fact be a LOT worse than they are but we are shielded from the worst. We won't be in Hell though. And those who are saved will finally get all the goodness you think we should get here, because there we won't have any sin at all. It will be glorious beyond our imagination. Griping about it isn't going to do you any good you know, and I suspect you do know it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understasnd that you don't LIKE Christian theology but if you could just put aside your feeling about it you might at least be able to recognize that the theology does hold together. I find it to be completely consistent myself and all your objections just hit me as ...some kind of thinking problem.Yes it is original sin that explains why we suffer, along with all our own personal sins piled on. You just say how the original sin is something else that you yourself made up about God's condemning us etc etc. So you don't like original sin, so no wonder you can't make sense of Christian theology. If you just keep objecting based on your own feelings there is no way to have a conversation about these things.The truth about Hell etc is "just a childish delusion," something else you made up because you don't like Christian theology. OK you don't like it so nothing anyone says about what it really is has no influence on the conversation. There's no point in continuing.

There's nothing random about it. It all holds together if you just stop getting carried away by your feelings. Purely coincidental. And we've all noticed it. "Satan" is from the Hebrew for "adversary" and "Santa" is the Latin base word for "Saint." No linguistic connection you see. That is actually a reasonable question for a change. Luther said "The devil is God's devil." He's on God's leash as it were. Apparently you do. That does make conversation difficult. Well, so much for that. We can all go home now.But I suppose Phat will answer you eventually.

Oh I do indeed get that. You are quite willing to treat as nothing the whole history of Christianity with its great cultural and political influence that made western civilization, and treat its great great men and women including its theologians as ignornant children. Even when I was an atheist I had more sense than that.The devil didn't start out as the devil. He started out as the most beautiful and powerful of God's angels. He became the devil by becoming corrupted by jealousy of God and the desire to displace Him. Some theologians believe that the human race was created in order to defeat him, which comes about in the very last days, even past the last millennium which is to begin after Jesus returns.Laugh your head off, you're the loser in this by treating it as a silly story.You grew up a Catholic right? I assume you heard Jesus' teaching about how we must become as little children.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fairytale quality of the biblical war between good and evil is one of its loveliest qualities. All good fairy tales seem to intuit its form. I love the idea that we live in a fairy tale. There's nothing inherently wrong about such an idea, it just offends you for some reason. The whole doctrine of salvation is a Cinderella story. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

God the Father is the Good King who sent His Son the Prince to find a bride. There is a test she must pass, believing in the King and trusting in the Prince. Satan is the evil being who tries to thwart the plan (Yeah, well it isn't a perfect replica of Cinderella. Or vice versa.) The ugly stepsisters are those who don't believe and won't be saved.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So he was overly impressed with his own experience as an auditor at Cambridge, where he apparently sat in on the classes of some big names. So his terminology implies more than he actually experienced. But isn't it possible that it's no more than sloppy misuse of language and he was just overly impressed with the experience? What impresses me more is that people get called liars at EvC for just getting some minor facts wrong, or even having an opinion that disagrees with the prevailing opinion. Granted he should know better but since his own defense isn't supplied all you have is the accusation. Fairness requires hearing the other side. In any case, what's the big deal? Does it change what he has to say?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fine, but in none of that have you reported Ravi's own answers to the accusations. What exactly has he said?

Your interpretation is not his own words, thanks anyway.