Testing The Christian Apologists

That's a bizarre assumption. We're talking about an example in which God clearly did lie (or was mistaken or changed His mind, etc.)Why do you believe the part where it says that He cannot lie and reject the part where it says that He did? How does that square with taking the Bible as a whole? Why do you go immediately to worship? I expect people first to acknowledge what the story actually says. I also expect them to question whether the connection between the snake and "Satan" has any value. Yes, I hope people would do that. Yes you are.You are constantly scoffing at the idea that the snake told the truth. He plainly did. And you are rejecting the idea that God lied because you have cherry-picked somewhere else where it says He cannot lie. Well, the book does say it. Why would I complicate that? Of course I do. How else would I know that they're making it all up?I'm not asking you to explain what the Bible really, really, really means (as opposed to what it says). I'm asking you to think about what the apologists have been telling you.

No it isn't. All I have to do is quote what it says. If you think it "means" something else, the responsibility is entirely on you to make your case. Again, you're not defending; you're asserting. Again, you don't defend it; you just assert it. But I don't "describe" it. I quote it. The opinion and practice among scholars is that the Bible is not to be taken as a "whole". It's your fundamentalist view that is contrarian.

I claim that if you were honest with yourself you would agree that the apologists are making stuff up. If it isn't what the Bible says, it's made up. It really is that simple.

Naturally, if you try to reconcile the Bible with your made-up theology you're going to end up with a tangled mess. That doesn't mean that the Bible itself is a tangled mess. What it is is a collection of discrete writings. Any attempt to reconcile them is bound to require adding complications on complications on complications.The complications are in the false linkings, not in the Bible itself. The first thing you need to understand is that my beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're just using my lack of belief as an excuse for dismissing what I say without thinking about it. So explain Karl Barth. Read the topic title. I've been asking you for an example of an honest apologist - e.g. one who doesn't try to explain Genesis 2-3 away. So far, all you've produced is a long list of names and no arguments.

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

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.

Stop preaching. Discuss the topic honestly.

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.

Reality. In this venue, the context is the Bible. Are the apologists telling the truth about the Bible?This is not rocket surgery. I'm just asking you to explain in your own words why Genesis 2-3, for example, doesn't "mean" what it says. If there's any merit at all to your position, why can't you explain it?

How does that "ruin" the story? Why doesn't conflating the snake with some Satan character in another book ruin the story? Of course not. Why would it be?The story is much older than Christianity. Why does (your brand of) Christianity get to mangle the story for its own purposes?

Duh. The story we're talking about. The story of the snake. That's not "a" story. That's two entirely separate stories. The part about Jesus being there at the beginning is made-up apologetics. It's what you're supposedly trying to defend here. It is not a foregone conclusion. If you're going to claim to be honest, at least read the post you're replying to.

They may love the versions that they've made up but they don't love the stories as written. That's where they're wrong. You can't have an "overall insight" on a group of individual books. But we do know what the story actually says. It says no such thing. Jesus is not mentioned at all. It doesn't say anything about a "who". It says "the Word". That's a "what". No. I have a problem with things that are obviously made up. Of course I am defending what is plainly written. I have said so many times.The story explains why (supposedly) snakes are unsettling.You have no basis for being puzzled that the snake told the truth because the snake plainly told the truth. It has nothing to do with relating to one character or another. It's about what the story says. You don't have to look very far. It's pretty common to be angry when one's lies are exposed. There's no need to speculate about the snake's purpose. He doesn't need an excuse to tell the truth. On the contrary. Claiming that "on the day" means years in the future is quibbling with semantics. "Spiritual death" is quibbling with semantics. How is that a "good explanation"? What does cursing the snake have to do with humans' spiritual death? Of course we do.

The main stream of Christianity is Roman Catholicism. Protestantism would be a fairly big stream if it was all one stream but in fact it's many small streams, with evangelicalism as one if its less-significant rivulets. The noisy rapids don't carry the most water. Oddly enough, I almost never get censored. Maybe you just need to choose your words more carefully.

I'm saying that YOU should think carefully about the words you use. Then you might not post the kind of stupid drivel in the rest of your post.