Search results

Yes, there is a difference; the willingness to ignore large chunks (possibly half) of the Bible. The fact that you label anything short of simply ignoring parts of the Bible as fundamentalism shows just how much you don't understand what I'm saying. Or do you not believe the Old Testament to be...

You quite frankly do not understand what I am saying, at this point. I am not telling anyone what to believe, but rather not to paint certain beliefs in a false light. If you wish to ignore the Bible, then all power to you, for I believe it to be barbaric, however you cannot claim the divine...

Oh dear, why didn't you reply to my other post on the subject? No, I am claiming that Christianity's conception of God entirely ignores his acts and nature as depicted in their own Bible. A loving God does not order that his people murder, slaughter and destroy entire civilizations, or that...

That's actually the entire point. Christians insist on claiming that their God is loving and kind when their own Bible disagrees.

Not really; more of a "If God exists, he's a fucking bastard of a creator by whom we all ought to be disgusted".

This is where such supernatural explanation simply falls into the gaps left by scientific understanding. It is a mere mirror image of a proper understanding of the universe that stands in lieu of a proper, quantifiable understanding. In this sense, such supernatural explanations are shortcuts...

Well quite frankly I cannot be bothered to continue this part, because despite all I have said you are still arguing with a first premise I never claimed. You keep saying this over and over but it is a terribly weak excuse, really. For example endowing humans with freewill does not necessitate...

I'm not too familiar with Narnia. I don't actually like it. But it's a reasonable thinly-veiled metaphor for Christianity, isn't it?

Yes and not all that much, to be succinct. Why, what do you think of them? Also to anyone reading this challenge is still open:

Come on people ... please?

No, I am claiming that Christianity's conception of God entirely ignores his acts and nature as depicted in their own Bible. A loving God does not order that his people murder, slaughter and destroy entire civilizations, or that women who are raped should be stoned, or that women should stay...

Well this should end up into an idiotic thread of shit, but if anyone wants to salvage it, I'd like to hear if any Christian apologists could deal with the problems of; 1) The presence of evil and its incompatability with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. 2) The disgusting and...

Not at all, unless you are trying to tell me that God is, and has always been, a loving and forgiving being, not prone to anger at the slightest things, ordering violent acts, sickening cruelty and extreme genocide. I am not imposing anything upon anyone. What I am saying is that you cannot...

What an idiotic thing to say. I am simply requesting that you actually follow and listen to what your Sacred Texts say about him without trying to repaint pictures of disgusting violence with soundbites about love.

God doesn't forgive. He's quite spiteful. He wipes out entire cities and countries for annoying him in the Old Testament, creates flawed humans and blames them for their own nature that he created and then demands human sacrifice in order to fix the situation. Don't try and pretend he is...

We seem to be saying the same things over and over, to be perfectly honest. Unless you have a new point to make, I'd rather we focus on the point of conversation below, as I find it to be far more productive. Unless you'd like to clarify points that you feel I have misunderstood. Again, there...

If by original manuscripts you mean those that survive that are copies of copies produced probably a hundred years or more after the original was written then yes, original manuscripts. Yes, well we're all aware of how uninformed you are as well.

... and I would say that this is simply because I have yet to be provided with a convincing argument as to why he exists, there is no objective evidence for his existence that does not involve subjective interpretation of otherwise self-contained explanations and thus there is no reason to...

Well it depends on whether you can still call it the Christian God when you consider the amount that they must disregard the Christian Bible in order to arrive at such a picture.

No, God is made to fit the hole. The Christian God, for example, in no way fits the gap, in any way. A vague deistic God can be made to fit into the gap beacuse it is unconnected to any pre-existing dogma.