Testing The Christian Apologists

What I've been trying to get you to do is to defend specific lies that apologists tell, like claiming God told the truth in Genesis 3.

The nonsense about "which tree" is clearly dishonest. There is no confusion in the story about which tree God was talking about. He said that Adam and Eve had become like Him, "to know good and evil."The bit about being, "condemned to death," is also dishonest. God said they would die on the same day, not be sentenced on the same day. All assumptions should be questioned.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The "life of Jesus" exists only in the Bible - and you reject much of what He said in the Bible.

I certainly do have proof. You reject what Jesus said about selling everything you have and giving to the poor. You claim that it isn't meant for everybody but you never back that up.

Isn't it odd that you can decide that the arguments are honest and make sense but you can't articulate what the arguments are? I'm not interested in how apologists attack atheists either. I'm interested in how they justify their own twisting of the Bible.

Bring them here. Yawn.

I'd be more impressed if he learned something from the Bible.

You seem to be talking about philosophy more than apologetics. I'd like to see you defend the apologetics on specific doctrines, not just this, "Does God exist?" or, "Do we need God?" rubbish.

We're talking about scriptural evidence here, so what you're really saying is that apologetic beliefs trump scriptural evidence. That's pretty shaky ground. It's never too late to throw away superstition and embrace reality.Edited by ringo, : Sp6lling.

That's exactly what it says. I'm still waiting for you to defend the apologists' mangled version. Until you can do that, you're just making yourself look foolish.

Yes it is. If you want to argue otherwise, you need an actual argument, not just an assertion. So is the Qur'an. So is the Book of Mormon.