REMIX: Who Can Be Saved?

How does that address what I said? "The Fall" was not a historical event (nor was it a fall). The "one man" was not a historical personage. Romans refers to the metaphor in Genesis.

On the contrary, the talking snake should be your first clue. No talking snakes in history.

But you said it was "presented" as history. Clearly it is not. History is never presented with talking snakes or talkimg donkeys. It is presented either as a miracle or as a metaphor or as a fairy tale. The other problem with that is that there was never a time in history when there was only one man and one woman. It's biologically impossible. Therefore, it's another miracle or another metaphor or another fairy tale.

Clearly it isn't. There are no talking snakes in history. There is no reasoning at all behind your empty claim. I'm not forcing anything on you. I'm pointing out your errors. Anybody else who's capable of reading can see that you're wrong.

I know the snake talked. So did the Three Bears. It's a clue. Yes, that's a literary point being made. It's not a fact and it's not history. I know you believe they believed it. That has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

I know the snake talked. That's how we know it's fiction, the same as the three talking bears are fiction. If you know of any history that has talking animals, feel free to give examples. It isn't that my imagination is cramped. It's that I don't use my imagination to understand reality. I use evidence. Imagination is for watching Star Wars.The evidence is that there never was a time when there was only one man and one woman. The evidence is that people have always suffered - there was no magic moment when it began. If He did, He was wrong. I didn't say anything about supernatural reality. I'm talking about real reality, evidenced reality. If there is such a thing as supernatural reality, it isn't history.

There's no historical reason to think it happened, so it ain't history. Supernatural and history are pretty much mutually exclusive. History pretty much has to be natural, with evidence. That's how we distinguish it from myth.

Everything to do with an afterlife is satanically engineered - "Satan" being the part of our minds that tries to fools us into doing bad things.

A large amount of bad data doesn't add up to good evidence.

Me too. You contradict yourself. If you're labelling it a supernatural, you're not labelling it as unknown. You're trying to reassure yourself that you do know. Isn't the pursuit of truth reason enough?

Idiots might argue that. What credible critics do you have in mind? There are many witnesses of flying saucers and alien close encounters and probings and Loch Ness monsters and bigfeet and ghosts and conspiracies and... and... and... and.... Are they all credible? Nonsense. Searching for the truth is not an axe. You should trust the evidence - and you shouldn't trust stories that are not based on evidence.

Yes I can. In fact, there is better evidence for the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot than for the resurrection. Then there's no basis for faith in Jesus. We have no witnesses at all for the resurrection, neither questionable nor otherwise. It's an axe that you've made up in your head. Truth may not be conclusive but false is. We don't need evidence against. What matters is whether the stories are true. If not, it doesn't really matter why the authors made them up. As Linus Van pelt once said, "Maybe they needed the money." Are you suggesting that she read the book with no pre-conceived notions on whether it was "true" or "false"? I don't believe that. Now you're just lashing out. You have no justification for attacking the motives of skeptics.

Because skepticism is the correct approach to any question. If it was some other religion throwing nonsense at us, then it would be met with the same skepticism. But belief isn't rational. Impact is irrelevant. The Kardashians have hade a lot of impact; it doesn't mean they have any value. The important thing is to throw out your pre-conceived notions when they're proven false, not prop them up with spit and spider webs. You don't know that. (By the way, I had never heard of her.)

I embraced THE message. YOU have shown no evidence of arguing for Jesus persuasively. A better question would be: What would YOU be doing if Jesus was here? Would you be refusing to His face to do what He said? Would you say He was poisoned by left-wing propaganda (far, far left)?

Since it didn't happen, how could it have impact or value? The belief in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection has had an impact on society.