When Humans Think They are More Powerful than God

Originally posted by raingirl
I'm sory, but that's somewhat flawed logic. Would you apply the same logic to any other theory/concept/whatever that is untestable,

You ommitted a key point, the part about it being designed to be untestable.

Originally posted by raingirl
I accept your point that it's not about me personally, but about people in general. However, i still beg to differ. For starters, i would ask where you observe such a trend from. In Christians that i know, i must say i have observed no such trend. Perhaps the concept of sin *does* instill such things in people - but from what i have seen this is not true of the way that this concept appears in the Christian context.

We are both arguing from anecdotal evidence. I imagine formal studies have been performed if either of us cared enough to look them up.

Originally posted by raingirl
You're right, such a concept has been hugely abused in the past. But political leaders are notorious for twisting religious texts to suit their needs. It's the same with muslim extremists today...

...it aint just Muslims sister.

Originally posted by raingirl
Further, it is far from an "obvious conclusion" that sinners have less value, and "unsaved sinners have essentially no value". If you read the Bible, you will find that this could hardly be further away from what it teaches.

History proves otherwise. Surely you've heard of the witch trials? The Inquisition? These types of things were still going on in the US even within the past 100 years - illegally yes, but the law turned a blind eye making it open season nonetheless. There are several recorded cases of minority religion lynchings even into the early part of the 20th century in the US.

Even in the case of O'Hare, the original investigation was a sham, because she was an outspoken atheist in a state filled with self righteous Southern Baptist biggots.

Originally posted by raingirl
I'm simply saying that my logic is based on the fact that there is a God - that is the foundation of what i'm arguing. Take away this foundation and my logic crumbles.

"god" is far from fact. There is nothing of subtance on which to base such a conclusion at all. Leprechauns are as much "fact" as gods.

Originally posted by raingirl
Too bad we can't prove it either way, eh? :p

...to be more specific, we can't prove it to eachothers satistfaction.

It should probably be pointed out that since you are the one claiming god exists, you must have some credible basis for making such a claim no? Your admission that it can't be proven suggests otherwise (btw, it also makes you an agnostic).

Originally posted by raingirl
It is no presumption. I accept, since that i cannot prove the bible, that there is the possibility of me being wrong. I base my statement that God (not Gods, plural, for i believe in only one god) would care about me being perfect on what is in the Bible.

It is your mere presumption that the Bible has relevance. That leads to your conclusions based on it also being mere presumption. Anything concluded from a presumption is also a presumption.

Originally posted by raingirl
You're misunderstanding my statement. God does not NEED us. God LOVES us. He knows that the best thing for us is to walk our journey of life with Him. Our sin is damaging to our relationship with him -- pulls us away from what is good for us -- and God sees this fault in us, and it hurts Him.

You were doing fine until that last part in bold. If god is self sufficient, nothing can hurt him, as "hurt" implies vulnerability and lack of self sufficience. If it is god's nature to provide the best for us, why doesn't he? Google for the riddle of epicurus if you are not already familiar with it.

(hint, the story of adam and eve does not resolve the problem)

Originally posted by raingirl
This 100% self sufficient God is indeed self sufficient. It's not God who's incomplete with out us. WE are incomplete without God.

Maybe, maybe not. But that still doesn't explain why god would care if we found meaning in life without him. How many people do you know who are "complete"? I didn't know any in my 40 years as a Christian.

Originally posted by raingirl
One last thing on sin >> definitionally, i think we would have different ideas of what it is. I would define it as anything that involves our disobediance to God.

I would say we have the same definition. The difference is, I would say there is no god, and thus it is not possible to be disobedient to god, and so there is no such thing as sin.

I would say we have the same definition. The difference is, I would say there is no god, and thus it is not possible to be disobedient to god, and so there is no such thing as sin. spamnham

Semantics, what name it goes by is immaterial, as is an extant God, the point is that there is such a thing as being a bad person.
And I don't know if there is a god, but then, I may just be blind to the facts. Neither claim has ever been totally convincing to me, and I see evidence for both. I know that I believe in some things that others will balk at, as they have not seen the evidence I have, and if I were trying to convince them, that would be a toughie. But I'm not.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Semantics, what name it goes by is immaterial, as is an extant God, the point is that there is such a thing as being a bad person.

I think it's more than semantics. Sins can involve arbitrary cultural edicts such as what types of food to avoid, etc., that have nothing to do with causing harm to innocents.

why are athiest disordered mind surerly ppl that place there "faith" in a god are disordered believing in something that has not been proven while the others base theres on theory and then fact.

every one sins but only in there own way (what they believe is a sin and not what others see as a sin) Sin is only a human creation based on our sociaty and is forever changing as now it is not so much a sin (I dont see it as) to have sex before mariage, to move in with a gf or to do a fair few things that are depicted as the ten commandments.

To judge one self as sinful or to judge others based on religion is wrong it should be based on ones own thought on sin or better still a set of laws that the public agree to in majority not by some imaginary god or someone who thought he would chip a few lines on a stone.

Why judge me as a sinner I dont think i have done as sinful maybe i could of done things better and maybe shouldnt of done the things that i have done but without those things i wouldnt be the person that i am today. and i see myself as law abiding, nice guy kind of person...

I believe that someone shouldnt judge another and the only person that should judge is ones self...why do you have a right to judge me or my life (If i live with in our sociaties laws) and why should jesus and his ppl judge me to say if I am worthy

Hi again,
I'm going to reply the posts addressed to me... but with so many other religious discussions i've been in, i see that this is not really going anywhere, so if it is so desired i'll reply another time, but i just got myself a job so i can't promise more than that. Been nice being here tho.

You ommitted a key point, the part about it being designed to be untestable.

But don't you see... before you've even given this belief a chance, you've already assumed that it is not true in the first place.

We are both arguing from anecdotal evidence. I imagine formal studies have been performed if either of us cared enough to look them up.

I would agree with you partially. However bear in mind that it is you who made the assertion in the first place, and i haven't seen any evidence, evenof the anecdotal nature from you as yet.

History proves otherwise. Surely you've heard of the witch trials? The Inquisition? These types of things were still going on in the US even within the past 100 years - illegally yes, but the law turned a blind eye making it open season nonetheless. There are several recorded cases of minority religion lynchings even into the early part of the 20th century in the US.

I agree with you. But if you read my previous posts, you'll see that this, while showing that christians in history have behaved appalingly, it fails to prove that what the bible says about Jesus is false. Nor does the bible, endorse such behaviour, it is contrary to its teachings it at the most basic level.

The Bible cannot logically be blamed for people in history that have twisted its teachings to suit their own means. In fact, if you read the bible, as no doubt you have at least in part, you'll find warnings of false teachers who do such things. That such events in history occurred cannot logically be used as evidence against christianity.


***

quote: Originally posted by raingirl
I'm simply saying that my logic is based on the fact that there is a God - that is the foundation of what i'm arguing. Take away this foundation and my logic crumbles.

"god" is far from fact. There is nothing of subtance on which to base such a conclusion at all. Leprechauns are as much "fact" as gods.

I really don't see what you're getting at. All i am saying is that from the Christian point of view, which accepts that there is a God (obviously), the idea of sin makes sense. In other words, my logic depends on the assumption that the Christian God is true -- for which i can pull out much evidence, if you would wish to hear it. (And for the record, leprechauns are cool even if legendary, butdon't have much to do with this )

You were doing fine until that last part in bold. If god is self sufficient, nothing can hurt him, as "hurt" implies vulnerability and lack of self sufficience. If it is god's nature to provide the best for us, why doesn't he? Google for the riddle of epicurus if you are not already familiar with it.

(hint, the story of adam and eve does not resolve the problem)

Should i be intimidated by all your hints? Perhaps i'm duelling with a more experienced player, but you know, experience doesn't necessarily make you right. Having googled the riddle, i am after all, familiar with it, though not by that name. As for your riddle: have you read Lee Strobel's "case for faith"? I find it provides a reasonably satisfying answer to such a riddle - if you cared to read it you would perhaps find the chapter on "why doesn't God stop all the suffering" an interesting read.

Again, if u liked, i could produce a summary here and now... but would you really find it satisfying for me with my poor expression to attempt to regurgitate someone else's answer, even if i agree? If you really do seek an answer to such a question, there is the direction towards it... if all you seek is philosophical discussion no doubt you will find that there are other members of this board more satisfying to talk to than myself.

quote: Originally posted by raingirl
Too bad we can't prove it either way, eh? :p

...to be more specific, we can't prove it to eachothers satistfaction.

It should probably be pointed out that since you are the one claiming god exists, you must have some credible basis for making such a claim no? Your admission that it can't be proven suggests otherwise (btw, it also makes you an agnostic).

I do have a credible basis for making such a claim - if you woudl care to explore that i can reference writings by historians and such for such evidence if you would like me to. You have misinterpreted my statement. What i have said is that there is no definitive evidence of the scientific/historical nature that i know by which i can prove beyond ANY DOUBT AT ALL that Jesus is the Son of God. There is, however, evidence that strongly suggests it to be true, and which, i believe, tells us that the Bible's claims about Jesus are TRUE -- and which tells us this BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. So, from a logical point of view i would conclude that it is MORE THAN LIKELY that Jesus is the Son of God, our only way to God, our saviour, and so.

Technically, if you were to leave it at that, yes, i would be an agnostic. But that is not the only basis on which my belief in Jesus hangs. I have experienced God in my life - I've seen the good he's done - both through good times and bad times, and i am convinced that he is workign in my life. I've seen him in the lives of others too. As Christians would put it, I have a relationship with Jesus.

Maybe, maybe not. But that still doesn't explain why god would care if we found meaning in life without him.

Read Ecclesiastes . Maybe some things are meaningless whether or not we think them to be so.

How many people do you know who are "complete"? I didn't know any in my 40 years as a Christian.

I can't claim to know any, nor do i expect to find any. But why should that be taken as proof against Christianity? *goes off on a philosophical tangent*.

Dare i venture to ask how many years you have not been a Christian? Or would that be too revealing as far as your age is concerned?

***

Peace.. i won't be around this place much more, but if u care for a chat any time pm me and i'll send you msn details. I don't agree with you on many counts, but i still like being challenged.

Originally posted by raingirl

You ommitted a key point, the part about it being designed to be untestable.

But don't you see... before you've even given this belief a chance, you've already assumed that it is not true in the first place.

Of course I have! That's the proper position for unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by raingirl

We are both arguing from anecdotal evidence. I imagine formal studies have been performed if either of us cared enough to look them up.

I would agree with you partially. However bear in mind that it is you who made the assertion in the first place, and i haven't seen any evidence, evenof the anecdotal nature from you as yet.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless, so I have not offered it up, nor will I. I would be willing to discuss it as an asside just for edification, but not as a point central to the discussion. Since I'm too lazy to back my claim up, I retract it. Sorry for wasting your time on that point.

Originally posted by raingirl
I agree with you. But if you read my previous posts, you'll see that this, while showing that christians in history have behaved appalingly, it fails to prove that what the bible says about Jesus is false. Nor does the bible, endorse such behaviour, it is contrary to its teachings it at the most basic level.

The value of a book is not what yours or mine interpretation of it is, but rather, in the actions it inspires. This part of the discussion had nothing to do with whether or not what the Bible says about Jesus is false. We were discussing the consequences of categorizing people as "sinners" and "unsaved sinners".

Originally posted by raingirl
The Bible cannot logically be blamed for people in history that have twisted its teachings to suit their own means.

What you call "twisting", they called "proper interpretation". No-one is the authority on what the Bible means. Any book that makes claims that it is god's word is going to result in the same types of behavior if it is accepted "as gospel". This is an unavoidable consequence of claiming absolute truth where there is no universally agreed authority on what it means, which is exactly what the Bible suffers from. So yes, the Bible is to blame for these "abuses".

Originally posted by raingirl
In fact, if you read the bible, as no doubt you have at least in part, you'll find warnings of false teachers who do such things. That such events in history occurred cannot logically be used as evidence against christianity.

They can be used as condemnation of the Bible itself, for purpetuating the same problem the Jewish scriptures began. The Bible warns of these things because the Jewish scriptures were suffering from the same problem we see today regarding the Bible at the time the Bible was penned. They recognized the problem, yet didn't understand why the problem was inevitable, and so they made the same mistakes!

Originally posted by raingirl

"god" is far from fact. There is nothing of subtance on which to base such a conclusion at all. Leprechauns are as much "fact" as gods.

I really don't see what you're getting at. All i am saying is that from the Christian point of view, which accepts that there is a God (obviously), the idea of sin makes sense.

You're welcome to your point of view, but please recognize that your point of view is not considered "fact" by those who do not share it.

Originally posted by raingirl
In other words, my logic depends on the assumption that the Christian God is true -- for which i can pull out much evidence, if you would wish to hear it. (And for the record, leprechauns are cool even if legendary, butdon't have much to do with this

)

I'm pretty sure I've heard the evidence you are likely to offer, but if you want to discuss it, that's fine. BTW, what makes you think leprechauns are legendary rather than fact?

Originally posted by raingirl
As for your riddle: have you read Lee Strobel's "case for faith"?

No, but I have read his "The Case for Easter", and it was total crap. All he presented were the "expert" opinions of Christian apologists. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, but his approach seems unworthy of any more of my time.

Originally posted by raingirl
I do have a credible basis for making such a claim - if you woudl care to explore that i can reference writings by historians and such for such evidence if you would like me to

It's up to you. If your list includes Jospephus, etc., I've probably already heard it. Would you like to hear the rebuttals?

Originally posted by raingirl

Maybe, maybe not. But that still doesn't explain why god would care if we found meaning in life without him.

Read Ecclesiastes

. Maybe some things are meaningless whether or not we think them to be so.

I wasn't referring to meaninglessness, but rather, godless meaning. No where in the Bible will you see meaning without god. Yet it exists!.

Originally posted by raingirl
Dare i venture to ask how many years you have not been a Christian? Or would that be too revealing as far as your age is concerned?

I was a Christian for many many more years than I have not been. Let's not dwell too much on my age. :p

Spamandham: I suppose some of your post asks a reply, but... hopefully these posts will get shorter so i exit this discussion without leaving anything hanging moreso than is needed:

But don't you see... before you've even given this belief a chance, you've already assumed that it is not true in the first place.

Of course I have! That's the proper position for unsubstantiated claims.

Perhaps another day i'll take you up on the "unsubstantiated claims" part of the sentence. For now however -
I think you've made many valid points, but I've found on many occasions that this is what's happened:
Me: If Christianity, (A), is true, then (B) is logical.
You: Assumption: (A) is false, and if (A) is false, (B) is false. Hence, (B) is false.

We cannot prove Christianity to be false - by all means try, if you succeed i guarantee you'll be famous -- and hence, to be logically fair, one must allow the possibility - if no more than the possiblity - that it is true.

I hope you'll have realised now that as far as your views go, unless I believe I've found a logical hole in your argument, I assume that your beliefs are -logical- -- even if i don't agree with them myself. I'm not trying to say that atheism is illogical - I'm not sure myself that it is. All I'm saying is that I believe Christianity provides an alternative that, too, is logical.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless, so I have not offered it up, nor will I. I would be willing to discuss it as an asside just for edification, but not as a point central to the discussion. Since I'm too lazy to back my claim up, I retract it. Sorry for wasting your time on that point.

No worry, thanks for being fair on that point.

The value of a book is not what yours or mine interpretation of it is, but rather, in the actions it inspires.

I would have to disagree on many points. I would not judge the book on my interpretationm, nor on yours. In many cases I find that there are -many-, even infinite valid interpretations. That is not to say, however, that any interpretation is valid. Modern thought too often finds that indeed, we are all entitled to our beliefs - every one is equally valid. I disagree.

This is by no means a polished definition, but I would argue that an interpretation is valid if the text as a whole supports such an interpretation. Note that I have said "as a whole". I would argue that if we were allowed to take any line of any text in isolation we could probably make any meaning of it that we chose. An extreme example, but if i took the story of cinderella (i'm aware there are many, but say we take the grims version) and said that it inspired me to believe that i should kill every human on the planet... do you think it would say more about me, and the thoughts i bring to the text... or do you think it says more about the text?

What you call "twisting", they called "proper interpretation". No-one is the authority on what the Bible means. Any book that makes claims that it is god's word is going to result in the same types of behavior if it is accepted "as gospel". This is an unavoidable consequence of claiming absolute truth where there is no universally agreed authority on what it means, which is exactly what the Bible suffers from. So yes, the Bible is to blame for these "abuses".

From what i said above... i disagree.


Also, just because a person claims that a particular thought or action was inspired from reading a particular text, it does not necessarily follow that this is true. I'm not saying that this is the case in every circumstance where the bible was used to support violent actions. But consider your statement again:

"The value of a book is not what yours or mine interpretation of it is, but rather, in the actions it inspires."
I don't really agree with this, but why not test this as a judge of a book. Let's say I'm really evil... and ... say i want to kill everyone that lives in america. And, say... I don't like christians. What's stopping me from killing everyone in america (assuming i have the means to do so ) and claiming that it was Christianity that inspired me to do so? I'm not arguing that this has been the case for each time people have claimed christianity inspired violence -- I am just saying that one cannot absolutely determine whether it is a book or religious text that inspires an action, or if it is something entirely different. So, even if you would like to use such a measure of value, it would be unfair to assume that every assertion a person makes is valid.

***

I dont suppose i've covered every point you've brought up in a specific manner, but i hope i have covered them more generally.

I wasn't referring to meaninglessness, but rather, godless meaning. No where in the Bible will you see meaning without god. Yet it exists!.

Meaning perhaps, seemingly exists for now... if there is such thing as eternity then i suppose biblically, one could argue that many things that we find meaning in are, overall, somewhat meaningless.

As to reading those books/sources... suit yourself, i don't really see much point offering sources at this point as you don't seem to think it would be worth your time.

All he presented were the "expert" opinions of Christian apologists. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, but his approach seems unworthy of any more of my time.

Just for curiosity's sake, could i ask what you found unsatisfying to you? That it was not his opinion, but those of others? Or that you disagree with what Christian apologists would argue -- in which case I would perhaps ask why? Logically, I did not find his arguments flawed, perhaps however, you did? (We are talking about different books after all).

Also, how did you go from considering yourself to be a Christian to not being one, if i may ask a personal question? Perhaps you could describe your life as a Christian, if that's not too personal?

***

Perhaps I wil exit this discussion eventually. Perhaps I should exit it now.

After all, i've already said what i will probably saying if i stay:
1) I find that what Christians believe is logically sound.
2) We cannot disprove it, in fact, i find that there is much evidence in its support.

Originally posted by daedalas
Why do Atheist ever have a disordered mind, because athiest beleifs differ from yours? GreatTech, have you ever once opened your mind to the possibility of that there is no god.

Now I know that at the phrase "there is no god" you immediately yell "NO! of course not!" but humor me.

Have you ever just opened your mind for a second and thought for a while.

Do you think none of us Christians have ever been atheists? That's one of the silliest assumptions I've heard. Plenty of us have been atheists... I have. I'd even dare to say that a third of us have been.
Anyways... The only reason you dont believe it is because you don't want to. I don't think I wanted to believe it, but I didn't tie my faith in a cloud of wishful thinking, I tied it to the Rock (probably wouldnt have done it on my own without His help either.)

Originally posted by spamandham
I think it's more than semantics. Sins can involve arbitrary cultural edicts such as what types of food to avoid, etc., that have nothing to do with causing harm to innocents.

Well, you have a point there, I forgot sin is used to describe what I describe as societal morals. If all the proscriptions in the bible are to be obeyed, then eating crab, lobster, oysters, clams, etc. is a sin. It would be a sin to touch any woman who was menstruating, but it would not be a sin to sell your daughter into slavery, so long as you didn't charge a usurous price for her.....

Originally posted by raingirl
We cannot prove Christianity to be false - by all means try, if you succeed i guarantee you'll be famous

-- and hence, to be logically fair, one must allow the possibility - if no more than the possiblity - that it is true.

Christianity is not a true or false proposition, it is a religion. Some of the tenets may be true, some false, and others subjective. The specific claim we were discussing is the claim that "every human on the planet is sinfull".

Originally posted by raingirl
This is by no means a polished definition, but I would argue that an interpretation is valid if the text as a whole supports such an interpretation. Note that I have said "as a whole". I would argue that if we were allowed to take any line of any text in isolation we could probably make any meaning of it that we chose.

You would not use such a standard for any other book, and would likely point out that it is a meaningless diversion to anyone who tried to use such a tact for some other book.

Originally posted by raingirl
An extreme example, but if i took the story of cinderella (i'm aware there are many, but say we take the grims version) and said that it inspired me to believe that i should kill every human on the planet... do you think it would say more about me, and the thoughts i bring to the text... or do you think it says more about the text?

If the text were filled with stories of Cinderella massacring nearby villiages and such acts were depicted as commands from god, and if Cinderella went about killing everyone for minor legal infractions also as commands from god, and then psycho Cinderella's bipolar switch flipped and she went around saying it's ok to break those trivial laws and love your enemies now instead of massacring them as she had previoulsy demanded, then yes, I would say that says something about the text.

Originally posted by raingirl
"The value of a book is not what yours or mine interpretation of it is, but rather, in the actions it inspires."

I don't really agree with this, but why not test this as a judge of a book. Let's say I'm really evil... and ... say i want to kill everyone that lives in america.

...and now if you have some book that claims it is "the truth", and that book happens to support your murderous desires, you have just found a way to justify those actions. That book now lessens a dissincentive toward sociopathic behavior, which will result in more such bahavior on average. Without the Bible to justify slavery, the peculiar institution would probably not have lasted as long as it did. Baptist preachers relieved Southern society of their collective guilt using the Bible to justify slavery.

Originally posted by raingirl

All he presented were the "expert" opinions of Christian apologists. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, but his approach seems unworthy of any more of my time.

Just for curiosity's sake, could i ask what you found unsatisfying to you?

He presented nothing solid. It was just a rehash of the Gospel stories as retold by "experts".

Originally posted by raingirl
That it was not his opinion, but those of others? Or that you disagree with what Christian apologists would argue -- in which case I would perhaps ask why?

Apologetics is the art of keeping something conceptually possible by adding speculative explanations to relieve the contradictions.

Originally posted by raingirl
Also, how did you go from considering yourself to be a Christian to not being one, if i may ask a personal question? Perhaps you could describe your life as a Christian, if that's not too personal?

I finally read the Bible. "As a whole" I interpreted it as crap.

Spam,
I by no means feel that I am any more experienced than you are as far as life is concerned, nor necesarily any wiser. What I can say is that i feel that my arguments have been logical. That said, i hope you will forgive me for saying that i feel that my posts are falling on deaf ears: i do'nt feel you are considering this with an open mind.

For courtesy's sake, I will reply your comments, but I hope you'll forgive me if i reply no more after this, as i don't see any benefit to either of us of doing so. If you would like to get the last word in, you're quite welcome to do so.

Christianity is not a true or false proposition, it is a religion. Some of the tenets may be true, some false, and others subjective. The specific claim we were discussing is the claim that "every human on the planet is sinfull".

Christianity by it's very nature claims to be a matter of true or false. Jesus said that only way to the father was through himself. Christianity does not give us the option of asking the question "is this for me?" It doesn't tell us that following Jesus' teachings is a good way to live. It teaches that believing in Jesus is the *only right way* to live. You can give Christianity the label of being a "religion" -- that does not make a difference to its claims.

As i have said before, what i am arguing is that the claim that "every human on the planet is sinful" logically makes sense if Christianity is indeed true.

This is by no means a polished definition, but I would argue that an interpretation is valid if the text as a whole supports such an interpretation. Note that I have said "as a whole"...

You would not use such a standard for any other book, and would likely point out that it is a meaningless diversion to anyone who tried to use such a tact for some other book.

Actually, i would indeed use such a standard. Not for "any other book" as you put it, but for *any interpretation of a book*, which is what my statement was about. It's what, in the literary world, is known as "textual integrity" of a reading. (Note: though the concept is similar, this is not the same thing as textual integrity of a text.)

quote: Originally posted by raingirl
An extreme example, but if i took the story of cinderella (i'm aware there are many, but say we take the grims version) and said that it inspired me to believe that i should kill every human on the planet... do you think it would say more about me, and the thoughts i bring to the text... or do you think it says more about the text?

If the text were filled with stories of Cinderella massacring nearby villiages and such acts were depicted as commands from god, and if Cinderella went about killing everyone for minor legal infractions also as commands from god, and then psycho Cinderella's bipolar switch flipped and she went around saying it's ok to break those trivial laws and love your enemies now instead of massacring them as she had previoulsy demanded, then yes, I would say that says something about the text.

You're missing the point. Obviously if the stories were filled with massacre, it would say something about the text. To avoid this confusion, i specified the Grimms version, as you'll see if you read my post again. I think i need not reiterate my point, i believe it to be clear enough in the first instance.

...and now if you have some book that claims it is "the truth", and that book happens to support your murderous desires, you have just found a way to justify those actions. That book now lessens a dissincentive toward sociopathic behavior, which will result in more such bahavior on average. Without the Bible to justify slavery, the peculiar institution would probably not have lasted as long as it did. Baptist preachers relieved Southern society of their collective guilt using the Bible to justify slavery.

For this, i can only point you back to my previous posts. I have no wish to repeat what i've already said.

As to your comments on Lee Strobel's book, I can only say that i have not read that particular one and thus cannot fairly comment, apart from saying that what you have described seems uncharacteristic of what i have read for myself and heard from others. However, i will not dispute that point as I have not personally read the book.

I finally read the Bible. "As a whole" I interpreted it as crap.

Wow, after 40 years of being a Christian? That sounds remarkably like a Catholic upbrininging... the very sort that turned so many Christians away from God after many years of being a Catholic, and, sadly, not much knowledge of the Bible at all... Perhaps this is not your own story, however.

I would, perhaps, ask why it is that "as a whole" you interpreted it to be "crap", if you actually read the whole bible, as your statement would imply... but perhaps that, once again, would lead nowhere.

As to your comments on apologetics:
I can only say that i disagree, and i have seen no examples of what you have described. I can only ask that for your own sake you take an open minded approach -- will ask your forgiveness if indeed you are more open minded than i have supposed. However, life thus far has taught me that although in the realm of faith and spirituality i may be certain, historical data and any science which is not repeatable (ie, theories of the big bang, dinosaurs, whatever you please) more often than not allows us to determine whether something is likely or unlikely -- i can think of no examples where we may be certain.

To take an approach to Christianity where one supposes themself to be absolutely certain that it is untrue is in fact, not logical at all, for there is no proof that should make us so absolutely certain.

And here, i respectfully bow out of this discussion. Cheers everyone

Since you have indicated you don't want to continue the discussion, I'll reply to your indictments and questions, with no expectation of a response.

Originally posted by raingirl
That said, i hope you will forgive me for saying that i feel that my posts are falling on deaf ears: i do'nt feel you are considering this with an open mind.

In this instance, I'll take that as a complement to my skeptical perceptions, as you have presented no case whatsoever.

Originally posted by raingirl

Christianity is not a true or false proposition, it is a religion. Some of the tenets may be true, some false, and others subjective. The specific claim we were discussing is the claim that "every human on the planet is sinfull".

Christianity by it's very nature claims to be a matter of true or false.

That's only true of certain sects, but even in those cases, it would simply be one of the false tenets. That does not invalidate all the other tenets. They stand and fall on their individual merits from my perspective.

Originally posted by raingirl
As i have said before, what i am arguing is that the claim that "every human on the planet is sinful" logically makes sense if Christianity is indeed true.

...but since it isn't (according to your all or nothing approach), then it doesn't make sense. Surely even if you don't agree with me, you can at least see that what your saying would make no sense to someone who sees Christianity as "false"?

This entire exchange could have been short circuited if you had simply asked if I was a Christian, to which I would say "no", and you would say, "ok, I agree that from your perspective it makes sense there is no such thing as sin."

Originally posted by raingirl
Actually, i would indeed use such a standard. Not for "any other book" as you put it, but for *any interpretation of a book*, which is what my statement was about. It's what, in the literary world, is known as "textual integrity" of a reading.

Ok then, a proper interpretation of the Bible as a whole, is that it is a work of fiction, but with some real people, places, and events thrown in to make the story more appealing. That is the proper interpretation based on textual integrity.

Originally posted by raingirl
You're missing the point. Obviously if the stories were filled with massacre, it would say something about the text.

I can only conclude you have never read the Old Testament in its entirety, because you just indicted the book you are here arguing must be interpreted in whole (nevermind that it's actually a collection of books).

Originally posted by raingirl
I would, perhaps, ask why it is that "as a whole" you interpreted it to be "crap", if you actually read the whole bible, as your statement would imply... but perhaps that, once again, would lead nowhere.

The old testament is a book of mythology combined with fascism. God is depicted as a bumbling megolomaniacle tyrant. There are still traces of the polytheism from which Judaism evolved present in the old testament. Then the New Testament comes along filled with the fulfillment of nonexistent prophecies and, what a coincidence, syncretizes concepts of the war god YHWH with Hellenistic and eastern philosophies popular among the Jewish diaspora. Do you need a more involved answer than this? I still think "crap" is the best summary.

Originally posted by raingirl
To take an approach to Christianity where one supposes themself to be absolutely certain that it is untrue is in fact, not logical at all, for there is no proof that should make us so absolutely certain.

I never said anything about absolute certainty. Why would you make such an assumption? Is it perhaps because you hold a different standard for religious ideas than you do for all other ideas?