Testing The Christian Apologists

If so, it was a valid fear. God feared that His own pet project of free-willed beings would be sabotaged. Just as some of us now fear that if people simply throw God away and go with their own intuition, they will also fail. Perhaps God created satan to give Him fear...sort of like a scary movie. God may have been bored.

Well, Adam and Eve didn't have any scripture to go by, so I don't know what your whole non-sequitur is supposed to represent.Of course the evidence shows that their intuition was right. They didn't die.

No, but they got kicked out of the house and had to work. They also did die eventually. If a convict gets sentenced to death on one day and finally dies several years later by the sentence being carried out, he still legally died the day he was sentenced. Right?Their intuition was what it was. God likely knew it would happen. It was part of the overall plan. Jesus was in the beginning, according to scripture...and through Him all things were created, so Jesus created Lucifer long before Lucifer even fell and became satan. They call Jesus the 2nd Adam but Jesus not only created the 1st Adam, He was Plan A from Day 1.The only part of the plan not strictly foreknown is how many will follow their own intuition and throw God away and how many will accept that Father Knows Best?Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

There you go making stuff up that is simply not in the story; being a classic apologist.

To me, the story is not finished. It is a story being edited every day by millions. Sorta like Wikipedia. After all, even you edited it enough to bring in Mark Twain and Mencius.

So what? They didn't die. The snake was right and God was wrong (or changed His mind or whatever). The point here is that the snake was right and no amount of apologetic squirming can change that. Wrong. Obviously. Have you never heard of appeals, pardons, etc.? He doesn't die until he dies. Making up "likely" stories is still making up stories and writing your own Bible instead of reading it.

That is simply not true yet again and again and again Phat.It is just another example of you trying to palm the pea, misdirect attention, fool the rubes. And it fails.I do not ever put Mencius or Mark Twain into what is written in the Bible.I do not misrepresent what is actually written in the Bible.

The apologist you cite certainly edited the story.So I’m going to ask this: When an apologist disagrees with the Bible, why do you decide that the apologist is right ?

I don't believe that the Bible has only one objective meaning. Besides, ringo doesn't believe that a supernatural messenger wrote (or inspired) the words. Therefore, who cares what human authors may or may not have intended? The book would only become as important as a room full of other books. I happen to believe that the book was inspired, and believing that I am aware of the inspiration, I question those who show me that the book says something that I don't agree with...or that doesn't feel right. To me, it does not feel right for god to "lie". It is patently ridiculous, in my opinion.If that's the way they insist that the book must be presented, I reject it. It is the ideology of not needing God and relying on human intuition. Well and if that is so, I am also relying on my own intuition to reject what is attempting to be taught. You do the same thing, after all. Are we not free to question anything that is taught? Are we not free to question our teachers? After all, it could be argued that Adam & Eve questioned their teacher initially. Out of innocence perhaps. Hopefully, we will get the same break, though we are not as innocent as they were.

No, but you use them to present the case for your argument concerning what Christianity and Christian philosophy is and should be about. As I have said before, you based your Christian beliefs on sacred studies of all religions and what you logically, rationally, and reasonably concluded about what the message essentially was and is. The fact that you simply show the Bible to say certain things is not questioned. It is done in a way that adds support to your own belief statement.I happen to reject the idea that God could lie. I don't care what the book can be shown to say. The book can be shown to say a lot of things. What concerns me is your motive for passing it on as teaching. No wonder you threw God away...I would throw away such a bumbling incompetent creation of human wisdom myself.

Get down off your high horse. The book says what it says whether it was written in God's own handwriting or by a bunch of goat herders. If it was inspired by God, why do you have so little regard for the words He chose? Why would He need apologists to explain to you what it really, really, really means? Why do you portray Him as incapable of communicating for Himself?

quote:

---

I don't believe that the Bible has only one objective meaning.

---

That doesn’t answer the question. The apologist you cited completely made up the idea of the serpent correcting the woman. Why believe him ?Indeed, why bother with a literalist reading of the Adam and Eve story at all ?

quote:

---

Therefore, who cares what human authors may or may not have intended? The book would only become as important as a room full of other books.

---

So, are you just setting up the Bible as an idol, devoid of meaning?
That would be a pretty poor thing to do. If there is wisdom in there it’s still there no matter who said it. And if God wrote it shouldn’t you be strongly against it’s misrepresentation?

quote:

---

I question those who show me that the book says something that I don't agree with...or that doesn't feel right. To me, it does not feel right for god to "lie". It is patently ridiculous, in my opinion.

---

I don’t quite agree with the claims that God lied - but the apologist you cited didn’t really help in that respect. But it is certainly untrue that the serpent lied and misrepresenting the story to try and make the serpent a liar seems bizarre.

quote:

---

If that's the way they insist that the book must be presented, I reject it. It is the ideology of not needing God and relying on human intuition

---

Well, if you think that The Knowledge of Good and Evil described in the story is intuition, that’s your reading. I think it is intended to be something more.

quote:

---

You do the same thing, after all. Are we not free to question anything that is taught?

---

I have no objection to you questioning and disagreeing with what the Bible says. I do object to you trying to make the Bible agree with you. However, if you really believe that God wrote the Bible should you even be questioning it?

I have no problem with His communication. I have issues with others who tell me what I don't want to hear regarding what He says in the book. After all, I can read the book for myself. All that I do with the apologists is to test what they say against what I already think that the book means.

Well, He gave me a brain. He also gave me free will. I believe that within the context of my perceived relationship with Him I am allowed to question many things. I see what blind obedience does to people. When they refuse to question their books, they blow themselves up, die for ideology, and cause harm to society. I wouldn't want to ever be faced with doing that.

Do you hear yourself? You don't want the book to say what you don't want to hear - so you only listen to what you want to hear. That would be following the broad path instead of the straight and narrow.