Testing The Christian Apologists

Why must I accept what Genesis 2-3 says as absolute truth the way that you present it? I have every right to interpret the book the way that I feel it should be interpreted. You can't hold my feet to the fire that you are creating by attempting to explain what a particular passage means.

The evidence is the argument. Evidence always trumps belief. Your belief is on trial.

Belief, In General, is on trial. And you too are a defendant. You cant simply knock down the whole concept of belief and proclaim evidence alone as the gold standard for humanity. How can we trust evidence that we ourselves create?

It isn't something I'm "presenting". It's what it says. And nobody gives a flying fuck whether you accept it or not. And I have every right to point out that your interpretation is made up. I sure can. Watch me.

That's my question to you: Since your belief is made up - i.e. not based on scripture - i.e. often in direct contradiction of scripture - how can you trust it? As Jesus said, your house is built on sand.

I was born again. May it please the court to tell the prosecutor to sit down? He is complicating the proceedings. Or do you consider yourself the judge, too? I can watch you make a mockery of the judicial system. You need to learn humility. That's why God even sits where he sits. You are not Jesus. And the Judge sits over there. He is not some character in a book. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Stop preaching. Discuss the topic honestly.

I am being honest. God is not made up. Unless the prosecution has evidence to the contrary, I suggest they need a recess. With the court's permission, of course.

And I have to ask if you are really familiar with the Barmen Declaration? Like the much later Chicago Declarations it begins and end by simply declaring things to be "Truths" without even an attempt at providing evidence to support such positions.Do you really think you understand Karl Barth?

You believe that God is not made up.It is a fact that God is a character in a book. You can believe that he is something more, but that is only a belief, like the belief in Tooth Fairies or unicorns. I don't need a recess. So far, you haven't presented much of a case. Maybe you should stop being so arrogant about your apologetics and actually present something of substance.

Not fully, but I can learn. As you know, I consider this whole argument of using evidence only useful once we can agree on what is being presented. I am under no illusion that Biblical Christianity (the way most of us think) can be proven. My contention is with the (in my opinion) warped attempt to use the book to prove a counter theology. You disguise it as Christianity, but it is not.Can I prove it? No. Does the book contain evidence to support ringos case? Yes and No. The book can be used to make any argument.

I have no problem with that. Like I told jar, belief can not be proven. My contention is ith both of your assertions that apologetics is not honest. By what standard is honesty judged? In what context? And in what venue?

What does the evidence show Phat?Look at the Bible and try to count how man different and mutually exclusive gods are found. The God of Genesis 1 and the God of Genesis 2&3 and the God of Exodus are all mutually exclusive.The God of Genesis 1 ia apart, aloof and has no contact at all with the things created.The God of Genesis 2&3 is more the feudal lord, powerful and demanding but also approachable and very human.The God of Exodus is the voice from off camera, something that cannot even be looked upon and where you have to take your shoes off just to listen.Each has entirely different senses of morality, different personalities, different mannerisms, different patterns of morality.What evidence shows they are not each "simply made up"?

I will admit that I am arrogant about God. I lift Him up. I disagree with atheism. But I respect the right of atheists to be atheists and secular humanists to be secular. As I have shown (but which you likely cannot listen to) I am listening to several secular humanists who don't believe.My point of contention with you and jar is that you ruin the story by making the snake out to be a hero and God out to be flawed. That isn't Christianity, but it does make for an interesting discussion.

Can we not each read what is actually written?