Hey davidf and Opinionated2,

Okay I may have been a little too subtle for my own good. Just to clarify, I had adopted the role of a born again christian over the last few posts to argue from that perspective. I had hoped the sign-offs, c‘born-again-for-a-day’steele, c‘born-again-for-3/4s-of-a-day’steele, c“born-again-no-longer”steele would have been clear enough but the clarity may have been in my mind only, if so then I wish to apologise to you both.

I have many close in-laws who are fundamentalists and have spent many years thrashing these issues around on an almost weekly basis. Early on I would rail constantly against biblical inconsistencies but have moved well past that now, developing a great love for the bible which I now see as an almost completely human book.

How could it be otherwise remembering many of the stories of the OT were passed down orally for centuries before being committed to the written form. In that journey they must have evolved in their ability to move an audience, layers added that allowed them to be relevant and resonate across many generations, to end up oozing a human-ness that can be breath taking.

Indeed I find the OT g-d to be far more humanised than Jesus although JC’s early reference to gentiles as dogs help to redeem him as do the taunts about his illegitimacy.

I understand a little about the midrashic tradition and recognise it at work in the NT. Mark was the earliest of the Gospels and makes no reference to the virgin birth for instance. Jesus’s deification intensified after the fall of the temple and conflicts between the ordinary Jews and the new sect certainly influenced the writings of Matthew onwards who would have had a motivation to elevate him as high as possible.

davidf, I began using g-d when referring to the Jewish g-d out of respect to others I engage with in discussion on another forum (it is they who steered me to Rabbi Kushner’s writings) and it seems to have stuck even when discussing the Christian god. I promise to work on it.

But OP2, you still haven't told us why.

>>I don't want to take your faith from you - All I ask is that you tell the truth about the Bible. Then people can make up their own minds.<<

Why is it so important to you that you ask all these totally impossible questions?

What is your agenda here? You must know that Christians don't rely upon the exact interpretation of individual verses of the Bible to justify their faith. So why pick on them? What are you trying to achieve?

For a start, how will you know when your questions have been answered?

As far as I can tell, the only thing that will satisfy you is if they all suddenly respond "hallelujah, thanks you OP2, I see clearly now, all has been revealed, I've been living a lie all these years".

And you know that's not going to happen, don't you?

So, once again. Why?

Csteele,

Your sign offs were a little too subtle... I didn't even read them after the second one... I thought your bornagainedness was broken into 1/4 day lots... lol

I too see the Bible as a completely human book. If there is a loving God he must be astounded that his followers could actually believe he was such a mean, jealous, vindictive entity when his wrath was unleashed. Amazing! Despite some of the stuff Jesus allegedly said - Most of the stuff was very amazing for his time

Pericles you astound me... you sound like the little kid next door when I was a child who continuosly asked ... "but why" after you answered the previous "but why"?

So let me play Pericles... After me explaining already that it is about truth and honesty - allegedly Christian traits - Why can't you understand this? Why? Why? Why?

And why do you not know why I ask why about you continually ask why?

Pericles - A Christian can't state unconditionally that the Bible is inerrant or God's word when it obviously contains errors. God's word wouldn't contain errors - would it? If they do they either are ignorant of their Bible (hopefully I have helped them) OR they choose to be selective. Is selectiveness telling the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help me God?

If you can't see that truth and honesty are paramount to a Christian faith then I can't help you.

Whilst not many Christians have posted here you can bet many have read the discussion. Hopefully they will have looked up their Bibles and will ask their preachers the tough questions.

The churches have changed Jesus teachings to suit their own ends ... the holy communion for example .... they have no mandate to do this and the restricting of taking of Jesus gift of communion to confirmed members ONLY is unBiblical and therefore not Jesus' teaching, and therfore UnChristian!

Why you might ask?

Op2, you post as though you're dazzled by the strength of your own intellect, but you're just rehashing the obvious and most basic criticisms of Christianity.

Christ in the Bible is nothing like the Christ cited by modern Christians. We know.

Christians cherry-pick Bible passages to support their own prejudices. We know.

The Bible contradicts itself and is obviously a man-made fiction. Yes, we know.

These points had been made a million times over before you were even born, but you seem to believe that we're all blown away by your insightful expose of Christian hypocrisy.

As Sidney J. Harris said, "Nothing can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own".

Opinionated2,

I can only apologise once again and will try to make any further role playing, if any, as overt as possible.

Pericles and I have both been happy to slap the odd OLO fundamentalist around in the past for what we see as aberrant behaviour such as referring to someone else as a non Christian when obviously they were, just not within the parameters of the accuser. Likewise bigotry is also indefensible and needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

But the tone you have taken through this discussion hints at more and like Pericles I would like to know what? What buttons are being pushed with you? Your thinking has obviously lead you to dismissing the Christian creed but what is motivation driving you to lash out at the literalists?

It can’t just be that their thinking leads to killings and war because there is far more chance of your guest hurting someone in her car than through her faith and I don’t see you wanting to relieve her of her keys.

I don’t think it is really her blindness to aspects of the bible since I’m sure you would accept the same in an one-eyed Australian, or a football club supporter.

Is it rather a reflection of your disappointment in religion and the recognition of the loss that entails? Or is it something else entirely?

So why? Let us see some of that truth and honesty that you ask of those Christians.

BTW I would have thought that churches obviously had a mandate to adapt their teachings to their parishioners unless you want the church to be set in stone. That is a fundamentalist position.

As to the bible, from where I sit the Old Testament is the tale of the human-ness of a G-d and the New is about the Godliness of a human. Try reading it as an epic tale rather than studying it and I’m sure you will be rewarded.

You are obviously finding this exchange as tedious as I am, OP2.

I am enquiring after your motivation. My question "why" has nothing to do with:

>>truth and honesty - allegedly Christian traits<<

I agree that these are allegedly Christian traits.

>>A Christian can't state unconditionally that the Bible is inerrant or God's word when it obviously contains errors.<<

I agree that the Bible cannot be inerrant, and that it is factually incorrect to state that it is. I am aware also that the vast majority of Christians accept this too, but choose to embrace the concept at the expense of nit-picky detail.

>>If you can't see that truth and honesty are paramount to a Christian faith then I can't help you<<

I can and do see this. I don't need your help.

But I suggest that your version of "truth and honesty" is merely self-important pedantry.

We may be getting closer to an answer with this observation of yours:

>>Hopefully they will have looked up their Bibles and will ask their preachers the tough questions.<<

If I understand you, you are hoping to persuade Christians that they are dumb to believe what they believe. That they are self-deluding chumps. That the evidence suggests that what they consider to be the foundation of their belief, is merely shifting sand.

Would that be right?

If so, I think it is a fair question to ask "why" you think this it is a really neat idea to do this.

What motivates you to sit in judgment over another's religious proclivities?

I fully realize that you knew all along that this was the question behind all those "whys", which was the reason you resorted to name-calling.

So tell us, do you perhaps get a kick out of feeling superior to these people?