Summations Only

Your predictions stem from a very narrow view of that proposed "reality". You seem to be assuming a fundamentalist reality in which Christians are the victims rather than the "saved".

Does it occur to you that a "transformed mind" might not be a good thing? Your 1 Corinthians quote talks about a natural or spiritual body, not mind.

You may be going a bit far afield for your "context". In any case neither Paul nor anybody else can detect anybody's pattern of thought except through their pattern of action.

I know that's the standard fundie line but it doesn't match reality. Most humans have both good and bad aspects in their "nature". Whether they're real or not, Jesus and Satan personify those good and evil natures.Since the evil nature is usually individualistic and the good nature is usually social, it seems odd to me that many Christians espouse the right-wing propaganda of individualism.

What does that even mean? The way you talk about "giving one's heart" sounds to me like saying, "Lord, Lord," which is frowned upon.

Often through context, which is why I linked your phrase "giving your heart" with the Biblical context of saying, "Lord, Lord." How does your notion of giving your heart differ from paying lip service if it doesn't involve doing something? It isn't your emotions that are uncertain here.

So, if the sheep/goats scripture doesn't apply to you what do you have to do to be righteous? How does Jewish righteousness differ from Gentile righteousness? So there's no point at all to the good works themselves?

You know very well that that "theory" doesn't work in practice - in fact it's a failed hypothesis. A thinking person will discard a failed hypothesis whether Jesus is real or not. Clinging to a failed hypothesis is foolish whether Satan is real or not.

I did say "a thinking person". You can't have it both ways. You can't be a thinking person and put faith ahead of thought.

Not at the same time. You can put faith first on Sunday and go back to thinking on Monday but you always have to park one of them at the door.When you're thinking, you're a thinking person. When you're not, you're not.

If you give a child a blank wall and a box of crayons you might not "want" him to draw on it but you can expect that he will.

That's a believing position, not a thinking position.

The thing is that the Bible shoots itself in the foot on page two. The talking snake is quite obviously made up, though the motivation may be uncertain. So if there's obvious fiction on page two, why would we believe stories about Satan on page one-ninety-five or stories about Jesus on page three-sixty-three?

Yes, evolution is "only" based on the evidence; gravity is "only" based on the evidence; all of reality is "only" based on the evidence. If they're unexplainable, how is "God" an explanation? Why can't you just leave it at unexplainable? And yet the evidence is that no god has your back; no god is reliable. But that's "only" evidence.

Your back would get pretty dusty.Edited by ringo, : pelling.